The David Knight Show - The David Knight Show - 12/3/2025

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 3, 2025 - The David Knight Show

03:01:43

The David Knight Show - 12/3/2025

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We can't leave long enough alone.
	They, um, did, uh,
	tell you.
	In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Wednesday the 3rd of December, year of our Lord 2025.
	Well, we're going to talk today about crypto, what is going on with crypto.
	A lot of articles over the weekend.
	Is this the crypto collapse?
	Is this the bursting of that bubble?
	And is it a bubble?
	So we're going to talk a little bit about that.
	We're also going to talk about a follow-up to, I guess we call it the Pentagon piracy that is happening because there's nothing at all that has any basis in law, Constitution, or morality that we see happening down there.
	And we've seen some very ugly things from the people that are being labeled by Trump supporters as the seditious six.
	They basically don't have a foundation to stand on either in terms of when actually called out.
	So we're going to take a look at that.
	Judge Napolitano called it as it was.
	And he said, I hate to see this happen.
	But he said what he thinks needs to happen.
	We'll talk about that coming up as well.
	We'll be right back.
	Yeah, we're going to have Eric Peters on today in the third hour.
	Looking forward to talking to Eric.
	It's been a while since we talked.
	I'm going to begin, however, instead of beginning with the problems that are in the world, I want to go back to the foundation that we really need to recover.
	And this is something that is going to be recovered, if it is recovered.
	It's going to happen one by one.
	One person at a time, one family at a time.
	This is a grassroots recovering of our civilization.
	And that is to recover the Christian foundation of our civilization.
	And yet, we can see some of the handwriting on the wall as we bring in these different ethnic groups.
	You think the Muslims are bad?
	Well, you might want to take a look at the Hindus and what they do and what the Hindus do in India against other religious groups, right?
	Against the Sikhs, against the Christians, especially.
	And of course, against the Muslims.
	Both of them are fighting.
	They're just as bad as the Muslims.
	And we have a case here.
	The Supreme Court in India now has called a Christian Indian Army officer, quote, a misfit for the Indian Army.
	Why?
	Because of his Christian faith.
	He's not fit to be in the Indian Army.
	And this really kind of gets to the essence, I think, of following illegal orders.
	You know, it is ultimately there is a higher source than your military officer, than your law or constitution in your country.
	Ultimately, you will be answering to God.
	This is a Christian officer who had allegedly refused to enter the sanctum sanctorum of his regiment's place of worship, supposedly for all faiths, on the order of his superior, citing his Protestant Christian monotheistic belief.
	And so he had a pastor who advised him.
	So that's not a problem.
	Can you imagine a pastor telling somebody to violate their conscience?
	Again, this comes back to, I think, a personal understanding because you have, you know, Paul talks a great deal about how meat sacrificed to idols, he says, we may know that it means nothing, but you don't offend somebody who thinks that it does.
	And again, you don't violate your conscience.
	And that's what this guy refused to do.
	He says, I'm not going to go participate in these religious services to Sikh and Hindu gods.
	And that was really kind of the basis of a lot of Christian persecution in Rome at the very beginning.
	You just had to go take a little bit of incense and throw it on the fire to the emperor as an act of obedience.
	What's the big deal about that?
	Well, Christians refused to do it.
	And they died because they refused to do that.
	Now, two judge bench on the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice of India and another justice, came down heavily on the officer and called him a soldier who, quote, allowed his religious ego.
	Whose religious ego are we talking about here?
	See, whenever you talk about religious freedom, it eventually comes down to whose religion?
	Are we going to have a Christian-based worldview and religion that's going to be there?
	Or are we going to have secular humanist, for example, or Hindu or Sikh or Muslim?
	And this is after he had lost repeatedly at lower courts.
	They took it to the Supreme Court.
	He had first gone to lower courts in Delhi, and then they took it all the way up to the Supreme Court, which really slammed him.
	They underlined that soldiers cannot prioritize personal religious beliefs.
	This case drew massive attention across the country as the undercurrents of religious divide between the minority Christians and majority Hindus in India continued to grow, fanned by Hindu nationalism.
	And I got to say that this particular government that is in India right now under Modi, who when he came to America, he was celebrated by Congress and by the president and so forth, and Trump has put a close ally of this political party and this religious group, and that would be Tulsi Gabbard.
	He's put her in a very sensitive position.
	He joined the Indian Army as lieutenant in 2017, and he was now troop leader of a squadron.
	He was dismissed from the army for refusing to enter the sanctum sanctorum.
	Actually, that was in 2021, so it took him four years to become a troop leader.
	He's been fighting the dismissal since 2021.
	He was dismissed for refusing to enter the temple despite repeated instructions from his commanding officer and advice from a pastor that his faith would not be affected.
	A pastor who tells you to violate your conscience.
	And we had a lot of those during COVID, didn't we?
	This is not just an Indian thing.
	We had a lot of really bad, quote-unquote, leaders.
	His lawyer in the court said that the officer's faith was monotheistic.
	He refused to enter the innermost area because it housed a guru dwarah and a temple.
	He argued that his client feared being compelled to perform rituals prohibited by his faith.
	So I said they told him this is the Supreme Court.
	Well, you can have your personal belief, but just obey mine first, right?
	Keep your personal belief to yourself.
	And in terms of what you do outwardly, you have to do what I say.
	See, we see these same issues over time.
	We see it in different countries and different cultures, but it's always the same thing, right?
	In the name of multiculturalism and being nice to everybody, do what I say.
	I'm not going to tolerate you.
	You need to tolerate me.
	That type of thing.
	Remarking that his behavior reflected the grossest form of contempt and indiscipline, the bench added, this type of, quote, cantankerous attitude is not acceptable in the armed forces.
	Well, again, we'll be talking about illegal orders.
	And this is really where it begins.
	Experts are sounding the alarm on the gruesome Christian persecution in Syria.
	You know, this is the guy that came to visit Trump in the Oval Office as Trump virtue signaled by what he said about Nigeria, and he's done nothing at all about Nigeria.
	Not that he needs to go to war with Nigeria, but he hasn't applied any pressure to Nigeria.
	I don't know what pressure he could apply.
	It's not like they manufacture anything that we buy, I think.
	And yet, when you look at this guy, you've got a lot of leaders talking about how horrible the massive persecution is there after Assad has been removed.
	They said, this is a former al-Qaeda fighter.
	He fought Americans in Mosul during the Iraq War.
	He was commander of the area.
	Then, of course, he went to Syria, joined another terrorist group, and that terrorist group ended up overthrowing Assad.
	And I would say, with help from the Pentagon, the Pentagram, I call them Pentagrams often.
	Anyway, these evil people in the Pentagon.
	And I make no apology for saying that.
	I truly believe they are evil.
	They're evil like the CIA.
	And when you look at the fact that they were using A-10 warthogs as air support for these people, that was really clear that we joined with the terrorists.
	We've been saying for the longest time that we were working with al-Qaeda in Syria.
	I remember when that was said, and everybody, oh, that's a conspiracy theory.
	That's not true.
	And yet it was true.
	We could see in the final analysis who gets put in there.
	That's what the CIA in the Pentagon does.
	That's why when you look at this phony drug war down in Venezuela, give me a break.
	We've got, you know, at the same time, Trump is boasting and defending the war crimes and murder that are happening down there of civilians.
	They are coming after this imaginary cartel that is supposedly shipping imaginary amounts of fentanyl.
	None of that is true.
	The fentanyl coming from Venezuela is not coming from Venezuela.
	Everybody knows that.
	And this cartel of the suns is a non-existent organism.
	But of course, we've already had a dress rehearsal for all of these lies with the pandemic.
	Regardless of whether or not you believe that there was a virus, and I do not believe there was a virus at all.
	They never isolated it.
	But you had a pandemic declared when even they said there were only three or four people in the entire country that had had an issue.
	And China, same thing.
	As Gerald Sinti points out, six people, they said.
	Even if that were true, that's not justification.
	So if they can have all of these draconian measures and lockdowns and everything over a non-existent pandemic, over a non-existent virus, then of course we can have a war over a non-existent organism that is supposedly, but not really, shipping fentanyl.
	It's insane, but they've established that we will go along with that and that there will not be any consequences for them.
	I've come to the conclusion that religious freedom is the most sacred human right of all, said one of the people talking about what's going on in Syria.
	He says, think about that.
	If you don't have religious freedom, what do you have?
	Religious freedom is the canary in the coal mine.
	If you don't have religious freedom underneath it, you're going to have terrorism.
	And that's what we see in Syria, yet Trump has no issue with real terrorists.
	This guy is really a terrorist.
	That's not what the situation is in Venezuela.
	And as I said yesterday, in that clip of Trump saying, well, you know, in Libya, we should have just gone in there.
	Where we made the mistake, we should have gone in there.
	We should have done a deal with him, even though he's a terrorist, right?
	And we should have taken half of their oil.
	And of course, Venezuela has more oil than anybody.
	This is classic colonialism.
	You know, we see the left throw these terms out, racist, colonialist, and all this kind of, so many times that it destroys that word.
	Basically, people get inoculated against it.
	It's like crying wolf.
	Except this is really a wolf.
	This is the wolf of colonialism.
	That's what colonialism was.
	You go in, you overthrow the government, and you loot the country of its natural resources.
	And that's what Trump is doing.
	He's an old 19th century colonialist, a New York City Democrat as well.
	But that's what he really is.
	And, you know, when you talk about genocide, oh, don't use that word.
	That's been used so much.
	And yet, when it does apply, they get really upset about that.
	So sometimes it does apply.
	We have here, meanwhile, in the U.S., and not just in the U.S., but in the Bible Belt in the South, we have a street preacher talking about free speech and the free exercise of religion.
	Case involving a Mississippi street preacher arrested for sharing the gospel outside a concert venue has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for a ruling that could reshape how Americans defend their constitutional rights against local restrictions.
	I wonder if the Supreme Court will pay any attention to their precedent of Marsh versus Alabama.
	And you've heard me talk about that over and over again.
	Just to briefly recap, somebody was handing out religious tracts in the public square in a town.
	And the town was privately owned because it was a coal company that owned the town.
	And they threw this person out.
	This person sued, went all the way to the Supreme Court.
	And Marsh versus Alabama.
	And the Supreme Court said, even if the public square is privately owned, you cannot stop these rights that we recognize as being basic human rights of free speech and free exercise of religion.
	And of course, that case involved both free exercise of religion and free speech.
	This one does as well.
	But I use that case over and over again because you had Jack Dorsey at Twitter said at least eight times in congressional hearings that Twitter was a digital public square.
	Musk has said the same thing since about X after he bought Twitter.
	And so that's the principle that applies here.
	And it should apply here.
	And I'm wondering if they're going to obey that, if they're going to throw that out and set a new precedent here.
	Officers barred him from sharing Christ outside the Brandon amphitheater.
	The city forced him into, quote, a designated protest zone, designated protest zone.
	And I've seen this over and over again.
	Before the Bundy Ranch thing, I had already talked about the RNC and the DNC, the Republican and Democrat National Conventions, when they have their presidential nominating conventions.
	What they do is if you want to protest that political party at that event, they have a designated protest area.
	And it is many, many blocks away from the convention center where they're having their meeting so that nobody sees them.
	And they have a cage.
	And if you want to protest the Republicans at the Republican Convention or the Democrats at the Democratic Convention, you go down to that cage and they'll give you a microphone and a soapbox.
	And you can scream your lungs out in this remote cage because nobody will hear you.
	And they literally are caging free speech.
	It's an amazing metaphor.
	But we saw it again at the Bundy Ranch when I was there.
	When we got there, they had cordoned off an area with like some construction, I don't know, what do you call it, fencing?
	It's like really set up usually to stop silt.
	You know, when you got construction going on, they'll put this orange plastic stuff up on fencing.
	They had that around the area.
	It was the first thing Josh and I took a picture of, and they had a very professionally printed sign that says, free speech area.
	You know, don't go anywhere else.
	You go here.
	This is out, and it was amazing how remote this was.
	This is out in the middle of nowhere, northern Nevada, where the Bundy Ranch was.
	And there was nobody up there except for the Bundy Ranch people and the protesters who are there in a different area.
	But they wanted you to go to this particular area.
	And somebody put up a handwritten sign that said, free speech is not an area.
	It is not an area.
	But they do it at the political conventions.
	They do it at other protests.
	Now they want to do it in terms of religious street preaching as well.
	He said, I just love to tell people about Jesus.
	I come to the venue to hand out gospel tracts and to tell people about Christ.
	Same situation that was happening in Marsh versus Alabama.
	The city used a broad ordinance to push him away from the crowds, an action that he and his attorneys say amounts to viewpoint discrimination.
	The Supreme Court is not deciding yet whether the ordinance of the city violates the First Amendment.
	Instead, the justices will determine whether he even has a legal right to challenge the ordinance after receiving a conviction but no jail time.
	Lower courts dismissed his civil rights lawsuit, claiming he could not challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance because he had already been convicted under it, even though he never served jail time and could not file a habeas appeal.
	This is crazy.
	I mean, how in the world can you get convicted of something and you don't have a right to appeal that now?
	The guarantee of religious liberty is meaningless if you don't have the opportunity to protect those rights in court.
	And these are principles that apply for every part of the Bill of Rights.
	Under the Fifth Circuit's view, people like Mr. Oliver must either break the law again or surrender their constitutional rights.
	Brandon City officials say that he shouted at passerbys and he displayed graphic pro-life signs.
	Well, actually, what he was showing was graphic anti-abortion, showing pictures of abortion murders.
	You know, pro-life sign would be family having dinner at Thanksgiving or something like that.
	This is pictures of babies that have been ripped apart by the abortionists.
	It prompted complaints, of course, and so the police got involved.
	They don't like you talking about murder, do they?
	Christian ministries and free speech advocates warn that designated protest zones are increasingly being used nationwide to push Christian expression out of sight.
	And we see this in every aspect.
	I mean, you know, when you look at the Supreme Court decisions that hit in the middle of the 20th century where they started putting a gag on anybody saying anything about their religious beliefs, their Christian religious beliefs, you know, talk about the other stuff, that's fine.
	But you want to talk about secular humanism?
	You want to talk about evolution?
	That's great.
	You want feminism?
	That's great.
	But those worldviews are approved, but you can't talk about your Christian faith.
	So, you know, we saw that kind of, what it essentially did was to create, in the same way that I was talking about these designated protest zones, it created areas where the First Amendment free expression of religion was not allowed.
	So it's kind of, it's now prohibited unless we allow it type of thing.
	If they can limit your free speech in a public park, they can take away a fundamental right.
	It's absolutely true.
	And so, do you have the right, this is what the Supreme Court is looking at, do you have the right to challenge an unconstitutional law before being forced to violate it again?
	Under the Fifth Circuit's interpretation, Oliver and I guess it's Olivier and others in his position face an impossible dilemma.
	Either surrender their First Amendment freedoms and comply with a restricted ordinance, or knowingly break that ordinance again and expose themselves to fresh criminal penalties just to gain access to the courts.
	Constitutional scholars warn the Supreme Court's ruling to determine whether citizens can still preemptively defend their religious liberty and free speech or whether they must endure repeated prosecutions before being allowed to contest government overreach.
	It's important to fight against this stuff, but we have to realize that our rights don't come from government.
	Government can take them away.
	The way Thomas Jefferson said, he said, life and liberty can be destroyed, but they cannot be separated.
	And that's true of all this stuff.
	The government has the power to destroy, but they can't really separate you from God.
	The case arises when many believers see is an increasing hostility towards public expressions of faith in the U.S.
	And it's only going to get worse as we bring in people from other countries who have absolutely no tradition of tolerance.
	That is a Christian thing.
	Christian students have all faced growing government pressure to stay silent or to stay out of sight.
	So again, whose religion is it going to be?
	The secular humanists?
	Planned parenthood and feminism?
	Hindu religion?
	What is it going to be?
	If the court rules in his favor, it may reaffirm religious liberty does not depend on government permission.
	Of course it doesn't.
	That Christians do not lose their rights because others find their message uncomfortable.
	See, we're back into hate speech territory again.
	If the court rules against them, local governments may gain expanded authority to confine or to restrict public evangelism, setting a precedent.
	And that is always the case.
	When you look at hate speech, hate speech is just a facade for censorship.
	They're going to shut down the speech that they hate.
	They will call it hateful.
	Well, I just want to, you know, I want to take a quick break here, but I thought this was an excellent point here.
	This is something that I think we've all seen, but maybe we missed something that's very significant in it.
	The Charlie Brown Christmas special is hitting its 60th anniversary, December the 9th, so in about a week.
	And it was December the 9th, 1965, 60 years ago, that it premiered.
	And this person who wrote an article about it said that he was in the first grade when they were doing Christmas pageants.
	He said, our class performed a version of the Charlie Brown Christmas.
	Since I was kind of a bookworm and already had a blue blanket, I was chosen to play the part of Linus.
	As Linus, I memorized Luke 2, 8 through 14, and that has been hidden in my heart ever since.
	But while working so diligently to learn those lines, there's one important thing I didn't notice, and I didn't notice until now.
	I'm going to play a little excerpt of that for you.
	See if you can notice a significant thing.
	He said, even though Linus' security blanket remains a major source of ridicule for the otherwise mature and thoughtful Linus, he simply refuses to give it up until he gets to a certain point.
	Watch this.
	Everything I do turns into a disaster.
	I guess I really don't know what Christmas is all about.
	Isn't there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?
	Sure, Charlie Brown.
	I can tell you what Christmas is all about.
	Lights, please.
	And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
	And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them.
	And the glory of the Lord shone round about them.
	And they were sore afraid.
	And the angel said unto them, fear not.
	For behold, I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
	For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.
	And this shall be a sign unto you.
	You shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in the manger.
	And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men.
	That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.
	So did you catch it?
	When he gets to the part, he says, fear not.
	He drops his security blanket right there.
	So is it a coincidence?
	I don't know.
	I think that Charles Schultz was a pretty strong Christian.
	That's why he put that in there.
	And he got a lot of pushback from CBS for putting that in there in the first place.
	So he's got Linus dropping his security blanket right there.
	As he points out, he said, Jesus separates us from our fears, frees us from the habits we're unwilling or unable to break for ourselves.
	He allows us to drop the false security blankets that we've been hanging to.
	Yeah.
	The world is a scary place.
	Most of us find ourselves grasping for something temporal for security, whatever that may be.
	Essentially, ours is a world in which it is very difficult to fear not.
	So we'll take a break.
	And then we'll come back and we'll talk about the things that are bad that we do not fear.
	We'll be right back.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Hear news now at APS Radio News.com or get the APS Radio app and never miss another story.
	Welcome back.
	We've got comments.
	Guard Goldsmith, George You can find him at Liberty Conspiracy Monday through Friday at 6 p.m.
	Says the Marsha, Alabama case destroyed the principle of private property, leaving its definition in the hands of government.
	Once it is defined by the government, put into private prop.
	That's the death of private prop.
	But anything supported by tax money is public, open to all the arguing and dissent.
	Once the government makes something its plaything, it becomes subject of the tragedy of the commons.
	Well, I would disagree with that, Guard.
	I think that what we're looking at here is the fact that our ability to speak and our religious liberty is something that can't be taken away.
	Not by Elon Musk, not by the richest of the rich.
	The purpose of government is to protect our God-given liberties.
	And that is, I think, more important than property.
	I know that Murray Rothbard looks at all human rights as a property issue.
	I disregard, I don't agree with that.
	I think that is simply a secularist, materialist point of view that he's trying to argue for.
	So I don't agree with that at all.
	But let's talk a little bit about.
	Yeah.
	The way I see it is it's the government is there to prevent an even worse government from taking its place.
	If you just have a power vacuum, the person with the biggest guns is going to implement whatever government they want.
	So it's there to ensure those rights was the goal of a just government.
	It's well, I mean, from the standpoint, you could say that your free speech, your religious liberty is, as Murray Rothbard says, a property right.
	So then you have a clash of property rights that are there.
	And, you know, if you have a clash of property rights, if somebody moves their fence onto your property, you take it to court, have the court arbitrate about that.
	That's a legitimate purpose of government, one of the few legitimate purposes of government.
	But, you know, if you want to take the Rothbard approach, that would be what it is.
	But I don't take the Rothbard approach.
	I think that's trying to justify human rights in terms of materialist perspective.
	What did you want to say, Lance?
	Yeah, I was just saying that once these companies get large enough, they start to take on government-like powers.
	Like the talk cameras can surveil you in a way that the government is specifically prohibited from doing.
	And if they are permitted to do that, it's essentially the same thing.
	Once something gets big enough, it becomes government-esque, whether that's financial power or military power.
	And I feel like the just government is to restrict these things from imposing and limiting citizens' rights.
	Yeah, well, we understand that the whole adage that behind every billionaire there's a crime.
	Well, I think one of the things we need to understand is that there's not these two separate groups out there, just like there's not really the Republicans and Democrats.
	They have this common agenda.
	And there is this regulatory capture issue that we see over and over again, big pharma, military-industrial complex, and so many different other things like that, where there's a merger.
	Just take a look at Elon Musk.
	Eric Peters will be coming on later.
	And first time I talked to Eric, it was about the fact that Elon Musk became so wealthy simply because he was a king of crony capitalism.
	And so you can use that relationship that you have with the government to make yourself wealthier.
	And it's really, you know, the socialist Democrats will say that the government can do no wrong and the corporations can do no right.
	The opposite approach from libertarians and conservatives is to always champion business and to say that government can't do anything right.
	The problem is that we're fighting between big government and big business.
	We're fighting a unified evil that is there.
	They're not two separate things.
	They're just two heads of the same hydra that are there.
	Okay.
	Comments here.
	Three little birds.
	I'm fighting preferred pronoun usage being mandatory in the workplace.
	I have the same obstacles you mentioned in this case you discussed.
	Yeah, I'm sorry to hear that.
	Then there's some disgust as well.
	Yeah.
	Disgust on D-I-S-G-U-S-P.
	Well, we have a GOP senator who says that the report on this kill order that came from Hegseth said, quote, shocked us all.
	That is Lisa Murkowski.
	And she is, again, one of the left-leaning Republicans.
	So she's not so much a part of the tribe.
	She's kind of independent.
	She was asked in an interview.
	She said, they said, can I ask you about the boat strikes?
	Well, the Washington Post reporting, your thoughts on that.
	If you think that they were too far, any concern with that conduct?
	She said, well, I have spoken out, I think, through my support for the King resolution twice already.
	So yes, I have concerns.
	Absolutely.
	Follow-up, they said, well, can we talk about the Washington Post story in particular?
	There are some folks who say that Hegseth and the commander who ordered the strike are liable for war crimes.
	Is that your interpretation?
	She said, I think you're talking about the second strike.
	Well, actually, I said that about the first strike.
	And I said that about the first strike before it came out, that in the first strike, they had turned around.
	There was absolutely no way that they were a threat, not to the military that was there.
	They were not shooting at them.
	They were running from them.
	And they didn't have boats that could come to America.
	And they didn't have any fentanyl.
	We know that.
	Because I say we know they didn't have any fentanyl because every one of these organizations that has been set up to monitor this stuff has said that they don't have fentanyl.
	So why is Trump making this story up?
	Well, he got away with it in 2020 with the pandemic.
	So she said, yeah, I think it certainly raises that concern.
	When you have individuals that are literally in the water, not the threat that they had initially presented, perhaps.
	So, yes, I have expressed the concerns and continue to have them.
	Thank you.
	She said, so the reporter pressed again said, well, war crimes specifically for that act, for that second strike.
	And again, there was no declaration of war.
	There was no justification for the first strike.
	There was no threat against them.
	She said, I think what we have heard shocked us all.
	And I think most would say that when you have two individuals that are literally floating in the water, a second order to kill them all is not something that we would consider within the rules of war.
	Hegseth on Monday night appeared to shift the blame for the second strike to the admiral, Mitch Bradley.
	And this is why the first guy probably got out because he knew that was going to happen.
	They were going to shift it down to away from Trump and War Pete, his sidekick.
	They're going to shift it down to the guy in charge of the area, which is what they're doing.
	And of course, I don't know, will he be able to shift it down to people below him?
	Will he do that?
	But then he comes on and he says, but he is an American hero, a true professional, has 100% my support.
	I stand by him.
	What they reminded me of, and Britt Hume said, this is amazing to see how he's throwing this guy under the bus.
	But when I read that, it reminded me of Brutus's speech from Julius Caesar, where he's Mark Anthony, where he's talking about Brutus.
	He says, yes.
	He lays out all these different issues with Brutus.
	And he says, yeah, Brutus is an honorable man, in almost a sarcasm type of way.
	So he pretends to praise him, and yet what he's doing is he is setting him up for the mob.
	Several of Murkowski's GOP Senate colleagues have raised concerns over the strike on survivors, but told reporters on Monday that they wanted to see further video evidence of the strike and audio of the moment that the order was given before weighing in.
	I just have to say, I've spent a lot of time on this in the past, and I'm doing this because I think this is a central issue.
	This is a very important thing.
	We all look at the military-industrial complex and how it is out of control in this country.
	And they have spent money and blood over and over again on wars that could best be described as hoaxes, right?
	Look at the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 9-11 and the Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin and over and over again.
	And when are we going to learn?
	When are we going to push back in this particular war?
	Not only are they obviously lying to us about all of the basis of this thing, it's not a war.
	They weren't being threatened.
	Everything about this is a lie.
	And so we need Audi at his podcast.
	It's all a lie, damn it.
	Everything is a lie.
	And that certainly is the truth about this particular case.
	And this is an opportunity for us to call out the military-industrial complex.
	And it needs to be highlighted.
	Now, you got Mark Kelly says that the DOT didn't mention the second strike on the boat.
	They said the congressional briefing was very evasive.
	He said they didn't say there was a second strike when they briefed us on the first one in September 2nd, and they didn't share all the information.
	Rubio and Hegseth had briefed a group of top congressional members behind closed doors in November, and Kelly revealed the general counsel for the Defense Department had seemed, quote, evasive, despite a bunch of questions from lawmakers, he said.
	Well, the problem is, is that when you ask Mark Kelly, he also gets evasive on this stuff.
	U.S. Defense Secretary says he did not see any survivors before the follow-up strike on the drug quote.
	Now he didn't see anything, right?
	Schultz from Hogan Cross.
	I don't know nothing.
	I see nothing.
	I don't see it.
	We were just blowing up the water there.
	That's right.
	We were fishing with ballistics.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, there's something very fishy about all this.
	And it is a fishing expedition.
	They're still fishing for a reason to be there and take the oil.
	What?
	There were people in the water we blew up?
	That's right.
	So he didn't see any of this at all, right?
	Except, again, this is not about the second strike.
	I think, you know, they want to make this about the second strike, fine.
	But it was really about the first strike as well.
	The first strike would not have been justified even if they weren't turning around.
	But then when they were turning around, you had a lot of former JAG people who said, oh, that's a very different situation now.
	And they're not a threat.
	It's the same principle as I said.
	If somebody breaks into your house and they're coming at you, you are allowed to shoot them in self-defense.
	But if they grab your television set and are running out with it, you're not allowed to shoot them in the back.
	Same thing is true of police, supposedly, and we see the police get away with this all the time, but you're not supposed to use lethal force against somebody when they're not a threat to you.
	And yet, that is especially true of the military because of the lethality that Hakeseth likes to talk about all the time.
	Problem is, he has focused so much on lethality that he pays no attention at all to legality, right, or to morality.
	So he said he did not personally see any survivors before a deadly follow-up strike on an alleged boat in the Caribbean.
	How many times are they going to change the story?
	First they said, well, we had to do a second strike because we're worried about debris in the water being a threat to shipping.
	The remains of this boat that they just blew some other ends is going to be a problem for some of the big military ships that are there.
	There might be some atoms that get in the way.
	Amazing.
	Hakeseth attributed the strike to the fog of war and a chaotic situation.
	Well, the problem with the fog of war argument, which is basically the way that he had McNamara excuse what he was doing in Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin lie, the falsifying lie that got us into that war.
	The problem is, is that you're all fog and no war because you don't have a justification.
	The Venezuelans have not attacked us.
	Trump wants to pretend that the smuggling in of fentanyl is an attack on us.
	Even if they were smuggling in fentanyl, that's not an attack.
	And all the conservatives who are saying that it is are simply lying to cover up for Trump.
	But they're not even smuggling in the fentanyl.
	Trump, for his part, also defended Admiral Bradley, although he distanced himself from the decision to strike the vessel a second time, saying, we didn't know anything about that.
	I know nothing.
	And I can say this, I do want those boats taken out.
	And we're going to start doing it on the land as well, right?
	That's what he's saying.
	So I guess they're going to start blowing up boats on the land.
	And, you know, you have to drop bombs on Venezuela because they might build boats at some point in time in the future if you don't bomb them to smotherines.
	So Hegseth had gone on Fox News just hours after the no survivors boat strike and bragged, I watched it live.
	Okay.
	Hegseth bragged on Fox News that he watched in real time the controversial boat strike that he's now distancing himself from after the revelation that two survivors were subsequently killed.
	Again, it turned around.
	So he would have seen that.
	He can't say that he left before that was seen because he was there before they dropped the bombs.
	Hegseth was blamed for giving the order for initial reporting, but has since pointed the finger at the Admiral while claiming to fully support him.
	And that's what Brett Hume said.
	He said, he quote tweeted Hegseth's post.
	He said, this is how you point the finger at somebody while pretending to support him.
	Early in the day, Hume had said on Fox News that the story could be, quote, a big problem for the Trump administration.
	It should be.
	It should be.
	Ryan Goodman, a former general counsel for the Department of Defense, said that if Hegseth ordered everyone on the boat killed, then the Secretary is ultimately responsible for the second strike, regardless of Bradley's involvement.
	And, you know, Trump is responsible for sending this massive armada down there.
	Right?
	I mean, you know, they're sending these troops down, and then they are at the same time saying, you do what I say, whether it is legal or not.
	So if there's not a legal war, you still have to kill everybody if they tell you to kill everybody.
	So Trump and Hegseth are saying, our orders are to kill everybody.
	And then when they kill everybody, they say, well, we didn't order that.
	You ordered the troops down there.
	You ordered the troops to kill.
	You are complicit in all of this.
	I'm from Mar-a-Lago, and I say, kill them all.
	Worst case scenario is what the Washington Post is reporting, what CNN reported, which is that Secretary Hegseth is the one who told Admiral Bradley that he wanted to ensure that there would be no survivors.
	That is the worst case scenario.
	The best case scenario for him is that he gave some instruction to Bradley, who then interpreted it to mean the very same thing.
	But that would also hold Hegseth responsible.
	Again, it would also hold Trump responsible because Trump's the one who sent them down to do that.
	He's getting very serious about it.
	He's canceled Christmas leave for these people.
	So again, the fog of war when the quote-unquote war has not been declared and it's unjust to start with.
	It's not going to get a declaration, but they're not going to do that.
	They're just going to do it illegally.
	Free Thought Project says, blowing up boats won't stop fentanyl.
	Ending the drug war will.
	And I agree with their general thrust here because, and I've said this many times, one of the things that happens when you have prohibition, and of course they don't want to call this prohibition.
	They want to call it a drug war.
	And I think that there is a reason for that.
	It's not just that they, you know, they got a war on poverty.
	They got a war on this.
	They got a war on that.
	They'd like to have czars about the drug czar and all the rest of this kind of stuff.
	However, I think it's very important for them not to call it prohibition because that would highlight the fact that there is no constitutional authority for the drug war.
	You had to have a special amendment to the Constitution to prohibit alcohol, and then a second one to bring it back, the 18th and the 21st Amendment.
	It's easy to remember that because those are the drinking ages in various states, 18 and 21.
	So the administration calls the people killed narco-terrorists, says a Free Thought Project.
	And this is actually an article from John Vibes.
	Says that the strikes are necessary to protect American lives from the fentanyl epidemic.
	However, the Coast Guard statistics suggest, and this is what Rampaulo said, he said about a quarter of the time.
	It's very specific.
	27% of the suspected drug boat searches come up empty.
	Figures have shown that fentanyl is not exported to the U.S. from Venezuela.
	It's all a lie to justify regime change, and it's not even a good one.
	And, you know, it's not even just regime change.
	I mean, this is what the left has always been screaming about with colonialism.
	There is a point in time which these words do have meaning.
	And if you're going to overthrow the country so that you can steal the oil, which is what Trump has said over and over again, he said about Libya.
	He said about Syria.
	And that's what he's doing in Venezuela.
	He's wanted to do this for a very long time.
	The strikes have triggered unprecedented pushback from America's closest allies, for example.
	The UK has stopped sharing drug interdiction information with the United States because the British officials concluded that these strikes violate international law and they amount to extrajudicial killing.
	The UN's human rights chief said the same thing.
	Colombia's president said the same thing after an innocent fisherman was blown up there that was a Colombian citizen.
	He ordered his security forces to suspend intelligence sharing until the attacks stop.
	Canada has also made it clear that it doesn't want its intelligence used to target boats for deadly strikes.
	Even within the U.S., and that's a key thing because, you know, look at Canada and the U.K., they're part of the five eyes, you know, the five intelligence agencies or the five eyes of Sauron.
	They're looking at us.
	And they share intelligence on everything.
	But now they're pulling back and saying, we don't even want to have anything to do with this.
	It's kind of like what they did with the Royal Family did with Jeffrey Epstein.
	Gonna sever all ties with us.
	This is too hot for us.
	And yet, you know, Trump just soldiers on.
	He's going to cover for Epstein.
	It's amazing.
	Even within the U.S. military, the operations provoked serious concerns.
	Admiral Alvin Holsey, who commanded the U.S. Southern Command, oversaw the strikes, raised questions about their legality during a tense October meeting with Pete Hegseth.
	He offered to resign, and then he stepped down after just one year in a position that typically lasts for three years.
	When your own admiral quits over legal concerns and your closest allies won't share intelligence because they think you're committing war crimes, you're probably committing war crimes.
	Think about that.
	Venezuela plays essentially no role in the fentanyl crisis.
	The State Department's own research shows that Mexico is the only significant source of illicit fentanyl reaching the U.S. Fentanyl is almost exclusively smuggled overland from Mexico, not by boat through the Caribbean and not across the Canadian border.
	Think about the lies that Trump has told us to create conflict.
	Lies about fentanyl coming from Canada and how he fomented conflict by saying we're going to take over Greenland.
	That kind of disappeared, didn't it?
	Anyway, the boats coming from Venezuela carry cocaine, and most of that cocaine is headed to Europe, not to the United States, because European prices are higher and enforcement is weaker.
	The administration is killing people off in the Venezuelan coast.
	Listen to this.
	To stop a drug that doesn't come from Venezuela in boats that are not heading to the U.S.
	And they are killing them in a war that doesn't exist, claiming that they are threatened, claiming that they are threatened by people who have been shipwrecked and are clinging to a burning boat.
	I mean, this is literally the example that is used in the American textbooks to tell the military, you do not shoot at people in the water when they've been shipwrecked.
	They're no longer a threat.
	They're out of combat.
	And according to the Nuremberg Treaty and other treaties that we've signed, that is a war crime.
	And so everybody knows it's a war crime.
	Everybody knows it's a lie.
	Also, we have to think about, you know, these are boats that are probably loaded with cocaine, and they're headed to Europe.
	The European techno scene is suffering right now.
	We're not going to get any good techno music for who knows how long.
	And this is something we need to be concerned about.
	This is another, this is something else that other people aren't considering.
	We need to think about these things as well.
	Well, again, the administration is killing people to stop a drug that doesn't come from Venezuela and boats that are not headed to the United States.
	So this is 4D chess.
	Maybe it's four-dimensional lies.
	Maybe that's what we're really getting from Trump yet again.
	It's beyond stupid, but he got away with it.
	He got away with it in 2020 with the pandemic stuff.
	And he had the press, same people who are covering for him on this, covered for him on that.
	Don't worry.
	It's not the bad vaccine that Gates wants.
	It's the sugar water that's there.
	Come on, you can take a little bit of aluminum and mercury being injected into your veins.
	That's not a problem.
	I know I told you for 20 years that's a problem, said Alex Jones, but now it's not because it's Trump.
	So everything is fine.
	And because, you know, we were against wars in foreign countries like Iraq and everything, but now this is Trump.
	Alex Jones is trumpeting the fact that we've got to go to war with Venezuela.
	We need to not just overthrow the regime, but we need to go back to 19th century colonialism.
	The mismatch between their rhetoric and reality reveals something important about the drug war.
	The actual flow of drugs has never been the point.
	The war on drugs has always been about control.
	And when we look at it from our perspective, what prohibition does is it corrupts the police, it corrupts the courts.
	They want the police and courts corrupted.
	They don't want to have due process.
	They don't want to have any limits on what they do about anything.
	They love this idea of militarized police.
	That's what Daryl Gates did in L.A.
	He was the one who started these SWAT teams and the armored vehicles and everything.
	They love that kind of stuff.
	This is their excuse.
	All of these, everyone in government basically wants to be their own petty little dictator.
	So if they can get their own militarized SWAT team or police force underneath them, they would be pinning medals to their own chest if they could.
	They'd be walking around like any one of these third world dictators you see with the epaulettes and the chest loaded with medals.
	That's every single one.
	Anyone in your local city or town or all the way up to Congress and the president.
	That's what they want.
	They won't admit it, but that's what they desperately want.
	And cops love to just steal stuff and not have to go through any legal process, which is what civil asset forfeiture is.
	They love the no-knock raids and the militarized raids and all the rest of this stuff.
	People use hard drugs because they're looking for an escape from stressful, painful lives.
	They're self-medicating for trauma or for economic desperation, for mental health conditions that go untreated because they can't afford care, or because the stigma makes them afraid to seek it.
	Attempts to cut off the supply do nothing to address why people want these drugs in the first place.
	All it does is to make the drugs more dangerous.
	And before we talk about how they get more dangerous, understand, this article here on Free Thought Project is looking at this from a purely secular standpoint.
	But understand it is a spiritual issue.
	I mean, these people are missing the fundamental issues in their life, and so they're looking for some substitutes for God.
	And it is a poor substitute.
	And that's why I say it is, you can say it's a medical issue, but I think at its heart, it is a spiritual issue that is there.
	And as I've said before, I've talked many times to law enforcement against prohibition, LEAP.
	And these are, for the most part, they don't talk about it while they still have the job.
	They get out, they retire.
	You know, they're no longer a prosecutor or a judge or a police officer.
	And so now they talk about how futile and useless and corrupting the entire war on drugs has been to the part of society that they were working in, the institutions that they were in.
	And they point out that this is a problem that is, again, you can say it's medical or psychological, but it is spiritual.
	And you're not going to solve that by using this hammer of law enforcement.
	So how does it make drugs more dangerous?
	As he correctly points out, when you crack down on supply, you don't reduce demand.
	You just push the market towards more potent, more dangerous substances that are easier to smuggle.
	And this is not a theory.
	We had seen this before, and I've been saying this for decades now because I've been pushing back against the drug war for decades publicly.
	And we saw this with alcohol prohibition.
	What happened?
	Prior to alcohol prohibition, most people were drinking beer or wine, which have much lower alcohol content.
	That all shifted to harder forms of liquor and even dangerous improvised forms of liquor caused people to go blind.
	And that was a result of prohibition.
	It started moving people to harder liquor overall.
	It really shot up.
	Why do they do that?
	Well, as they point out, it's easier to smuggle stuff that is more potent and more dangerous.
	And that's how we got fentanyl in the first place.
	As enforcement made heroin harder to move, traffickers switched to fentanyl because it's 50 times more potent, meaning that you can smuggle the same number of doses in a much smaller package.
	Every escalation in the drug war has now made drugs deadlier because you don't always get the dosage right.
	You don't always cut it down right.
	And that's how people overdose and die.
	So is this something that is, you know, we're going to go in and we're going to throw out this imaginary cartel?
	Well, the U.S. is planning to keep troops in the Caribbean through 2028.
	This is noticed by a military reporting site that saw the documents from the Defense Logistics Agency.
	They've been contracted to supply large amounts of baked goods, including wrapped honey buns, vanilla cupcakes, and sweet rolls.
	There we go.
	Junk food for a junk war.
	We take our American cuisine with us.
	Honey buns.
	We're playing a long game.
	We're going to poison the Venezuelans with honey buns.
	And in about 20 years, they'll be so obese and sickly they can't fight back.
	We'll drop them from planes.
	Anyway, so a long list of stuff, but that was at the top of the list, literally in the article.
	They're dropping it for the Puerto Rico zone.
	From November of this year to November of 2028, junk food for a drunk war.
	And this is supplies for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, and Coast Guard.
	It's earmarked for this area and for them being there.
	The U.S. military has already amassed 15,000 troops in the Caribbean, including 5,000 sailors aboard the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier, which has more than 75 attack surveillance and support aircraft.
	Trump has paved the way for the invasion of oil-rich Venezuela.
	Again, actual colonialism, not a misuse of that word.
	Trump has provided no evidence of Maduro's involvement in drug trafficking.
	There's little evidence that this cartel even exists.
	This is a zero-hedge article.
	I mean, everybody knows this.
	Everybody who covers this says all of this is a lie.
	There's no fentanyl.
	There's no cartel.
	There's no declaration of war.
	There's no threat.
	Again, he got away with these kinds of draconian measures.
	He went to war with us with a lockdown and the pandemic lies, based on pandemic lies and a non-existent, not isolated virus.
	The procurement's length of time and the level of effort seemed to point to these operations continuing at the current level for several years.
	Well, you know, they said over and over again, I remember reporting this, people in the Pentagon saying we're going to stay in Afghanistan until 2050 or whatever.
	You know, I mean, they wanted to be there for another 20 years, they were saying.
	And it doesn't always work out that way, does it?
	We're not in Afghanistan now.
	That was a total unmitigated disaster.
	And I don't know, even though it's asymmetric warfare, they don't have a big, they don't have a way to defend against this aircraft carrier.
	But we don't have a way to put boots on the ground and take all their oil, I think.
	It's significant because it means that the Navy will maintain a large presence in the Caribbean that is far larger than what it has been in recent years.
	It further implies that the Navy will be involved in these counter-drug operations.
	And again, as Marky Mark in New Jersey said when he was on naval vessels, they had to have the Coast Guard people that were legally trained to do this.
	They had a strict protocol about how you would do interdiction, how you would handle all of this, and they had specialists who handled all that.
	Well, yesterday I talked about Megan Kelly, and I think this is something that needs to be focused on again, complaining that Trump is not causing these people to die slowly.
	She said, I'd really like to see them suffer.
	And I think that she needs to get called out for what I think is the most reprehensible take I've seen on this from anybody in politics or comments from the left or the right.
	I think Megan Kelly has the most disgusting take on all of this.
	I really do kind of not only want to see them killed in the water, whether they're on the boat or in the water, but I'd really like to see them suffer.
	I would like Trump and Hegseth to make it last a long time so that they lose a limb and bleed out a little.
	Like I'm really having a difficult time ginning up sympathy for these guys who 10 seconds earlier almost got taken out by the initial bomb, but because they managed to get ejected, you know, a little too soon, had to be taken out in the water.
	I realize legally it may make a difference, but truly, Mark, this is a tough case to really gin up the sympathies of the American people.
	Wow, really?
	Really?
	I'm really having a difficult time taking her, I got to say.
	She does understand, of course, that Trump and Hegseth are responsible for this, right?
	But she has no problem with that because she likes that.
	This is a person who's never seen war.
	She's never even reported on war.
	This is a person who had never even heard of civil asset forfeiture.
	She doesn't know anything about the drug war.
	She doesn't know anything about real wars.
	She doesn't understand the consequences of these things that she's talking about.
	And she has absolutely no moral compass whatsoever.
	That video is utterly insane to me.
	It's the type of thing where it's so absurd it almost feels like satire.
	But she's being serious.
	It's, you know, you can tell because she's like, oh, I just want to see them suffer.
	She's not taking it to some absurd point where she's trying to be funny with it.
	She's not saying something like, you know, I really wish we could make it worse for him.
	You know, like, what if we blow them up and then drop sharks in the water around them?
	You know, really scare them.
	She's not alone.
	I've seen this over and over again on social media.
	And we got MAGA out there cheering this stuff and cheering this illegal war, this colonialism, this piracy that we're doing and murder.
	And I see people over and over again putting this stuff up and saying, I voted for this.
	Venezuela's airlines have been closed off internationally as it appears that an American strike is coming within days.
	These are photos of the B-52 Stratofortress, America's biggest bomber.
	And these are photos that the U.S. has released off the coast of Venezuela.
	Right now, the only plane in the sky near Venezuela is an American spy plane.
	20% of the entire U.S. Navy is near Venezuela.
	And a second aircraft carrier has shown up alongside B-52 and B-1 bombers.
	This is the largest military buildup America has done since the Iraq War.
	And it is the largest naval buildup since World War II when America fought Japan.
	The firepower off the coast of Venezuela could potentially turn the capital into rubble within hours, as the amount of explosives on these American ships is just mind-boggling.
	We do know that the CIA is operating in Venezuela right now.
	There have been routine simulated strikes from Puerto Rico with bomber jets toward Venezuela.
	And each time they veer off at the last second.
	All it takes is one day for Trump to give the green order, and they're not going to veer off.
	I've seen this posted over and over again.
	Like, yeah, go for Trump.
	That's what I voted for, right?
	You voted for this massive waste of money, waste of life.
	You voted for the CIA to conduct its wars and for Trump to boast about it.
	You voted for that.
	And you're stupid enough to boast about that on social media.
	You're no better than Megan Kelly.
	These people, it is a sadistic evil.
	And yeah, I voted for that.
	I want to see that happening.
	Great.
	Let's kill everybody, right?
	It's that same attitude.
	Pete Hakeseth is one of them.
	He's like these Yahoos out there who are posting that video.
	And that's what you wind up with.
	You wind up with war crimes and mass murder, because that's all this is.
	Hegseth had denied he personally ordered the strike.
	So that may get Hegseth off the hook, said Cully.
	But she thought it was, quote, kind of annoying to even debate it.
	Yeah, who cares about the legal issues?
	You know, who cares about any of this stuff?
	I mean, so what?
	You know, if you got the power, you just do whatever you wish.
	You kill whoever you want.
	And, you know, remember, I referenced this yesterday, The Great Escape, where they finally catch some of these guys and remember what they did to them.
	Surprised.
	I expected either a long stay or a very short trip.
	I have to admit, I'm a little worried.
	I have to god I haven't blotted 70 odd ledgers.
	Oh, no, no.
	We're all over 21, put loose on the fancy breeze.
	We'd never have got as far as we did without you, Roger.
	For what is worse, I think you did a damn good job.
	I think we all do.
	At that point, they separate together different areas.
	Because they're going to kill them all.
	These are people who are prisoners.
	They are out of combat.
	Just like people who are shipwrecked are out of combat.
	We've all understood that you don't murder those people.
	It was something that the bad guys did.
	What is los for Sylvia?
	All right, you can get out now.
	Stretch your legs for five minutes.
	It'll take hours before you reach the camp.
	So when I see people like Megyn Kelly, Pete Hegseth, and these people who say, I voted for this, I gotta say, Travis, are we the bad guys?
	Hans?
	Hans, are we the bad guys?
	It's a baddies.
	All this, the organization, tunneling, Tom and Harry, kept me alive.
	Even though we...
	I've never been happier.
	To which Megyn Kelly, when she saw that movie, I guess, I wanted to see them suffer.
	I wanted to see them bleed out longer.
	They were killed too quickly, right?
	Well, maybe they were just firing the guns and didn't realize that they were going to be hitting people there.
	There was no order given to shoot the people.
	They were just shooting off some rounds in celebration.
	I'm sure the commander left before the machine gunnest actually did it.
	I didn't see anything.
	I know nothing about this.
	She said, our armed forces should not commit war crimes.
	Yeah, there you go.
	We should, like, you know, not commit war crimes, I think.
	Maybe.
	She checks her notes to say, yeah, we shouldn't commit war crimes.
	That's a note to self here.
	But she said, I also feel like I object to even the scrutiny of this event because it's all kind of manufactured.
	She said the criticism was only being done to retroactively justify the video by Democrat members who call them, who Trump has called, and she's called the Seditious Six.
	Infogores calls them that as well.
	Who had posted a video urging troops to refuse illegal orders.
	And look, I understand.
	We've seen Mark Kelly, former...
	They posted like a video saying don't follow illegal orders.
	Now they're trying to see if the orders are like illegal.
	And that's well, we've seen Mark Kelly, who is a former Navy officer and pilot, and we've seen a retired CIA person.
	And when they've been asked point blank by reporters, what illegal orders have you seen?
	Folks, it is all illegal from the very beginning.
	I've said that over and over again.
	I'll just repeat it one more time.
	And yet both of them will say, I haven't seen anything.
	We're just concerned because of the rhetoric that Trump has used that he might do this in the future.
	So they back away.
	Now, when you look at that, and Megan Kelly knows that this is illegal.
	She has no problem with it.
	So she understands that this is partisan stuff, right?
	In other words, Mark Kelly and this CIA Democrat senator, they don't care about the principles of a just war.
	They don't care about a declaration of war.
	Don't care about war crimes.
	If it was a Democrat president, they would be fine with it.
	And I'm sad to say that.
	But the message needs to be still, it's still true.
	You do not follow illegal orders.
	And that includes going out to fight a war that is based on a false flag and that the government has been conducting in a way that has absolutely no regard for the lives of their troops or civilians.
	As I've said many times, I wasn't going to go to Vietnam.
	It ended before I had to make that decision, but I would have gone to jail or another country.
	There's no way I was going to kill people for that government, for Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger.
	No way I was going to go kill people for them.
	They rejected my objection, but they weren't going to make me go fight.
	War is when you kill the people they tell you to kill.
	Revolution is when you figure it out for yourself who the enemy is.
	You could also just say that since war hasn't been declared, that by necessity, all these orders are technically illegal.
	That's what they're telling you.
	From the very beginning.
	But even if you stipulate that they were there legitimately in a legitimate war, which is a huge stipulation, the way they have conducted this from the very beginning is illegal.
	Mark Cully, she said, his video was based on nothing.
	She said it is a fishing expedition, as if Trump is not on a fishing expedition blowing up fishermen in Venezuela, trying to find a reason.
	They're trying to find something to accuse Hegseth of doing.
	Here's the big problem.
	You know, when they go after Venezuela or Vietnam, and as I said before, we probably get caught in this quagmire.
	We should call it Vininam or something.
	I'm partial to Vietnama.
	Yeah.
	But, you know, when they go down there, they do these kinds of provocations, and they're hoping, I guess, that they can goad the other side into actually shooting back or something.
	But they don't have anything to shoot back with.
	And so that kind of has backfired on them, the fact that they're not getting any conflict out of these people.
	So she said, so I really kind of not only want to see them killed in the waters, you heard, whether they're on the boat or in the water, but I'd really like to see them suffer.
	I would like Trump and Hegseth to make it last a long time so they lose a limb and they bleed out.
	Again, did she learn this sadistic dominatrix act with Roger Ailes or something?
	I mean, this is disgusting.
	But she also note that she understands that it's Trump and Hegseth who are ultimately responsible for this.
	You would think she would at least have the common sense, the good sense, to shut up about something like this.
	No.
	To not say this.
	Part of it is I think she wants the publicity.
	You know, the whole thing.
	I mean, I've heard Roger and Alex Jones say this all the time, Roger Stone.
	There's no bad publicity, the old axiom.
	They really live by that, right?
	I don't care whether it's true or not, and I don't care if it's bad.
	I want the publicity and whatever I have to do to get it.
	Megan Kelly is the same way.
	I mean, we heard her learn to curse like a sailor because every time she does it, she gets headlines.
	Look at what she said, right?
	And they quote her.
	So she wants that.
	So on CNN, they had a legal analyst.
	Yeah.
	Also, just go to show, like, very frequently in history, we see that the most bloodthirsty and cruel individuals turned out to be women when they were given power.
	For some reason, you know, they have this sort of disconnection from it.
	The monstrous regiment of women, as John Knox said.
	Well, I think to just generalize that, it's always the people who are not going to be part of the fight.
	And their kids are not going to be a part of the fight either.
	Legal analyst Ellie Koenig said on Monday, in a word, they were illegal.
	It is a core principle of the rule of law and the law of war that you cannot target and kill people who have been rendered incapacitated or defenseless.
	That conflicts with the Geneva Convention.
	There was a group of judge advocate general, JAG people, former military attorneys, who came out with this statement over the weekend saying these acts would be patently illegal.
	Colonel Cedric Layton just told you 15 minutes ago on air that it would be illegal.
	If you look at the Department of Defense's own manual on the law of war, listen to this.
	It uses as an example of something that would be illegal this exact scenario.
	It says that if you have survivors of a shipwreck, they cannot be targeted because they are incapacitated.
	It's no different than what the Nazis did to the great escape prisoners, folks.
	And if we accept the principle that we can slaughter civilians, that we can slaughter people after they're out of combat, even if they were soldiers at some point.
	Now they are shipwrecked, incapacitated, prisoners, just kill them.
	That kind of evil government will turn on all of us.
	That kind of tyranny is going to come home against all of us.
	Judge Napolitano weighed in on this.
	He was on Fox News.
	Actually, no, he wasn't on Fox News, but he said, you know, he worked at Fox News for four years with Pete Hegseth.
	He said, it gives me no pleasure to say this, but he should be prosecuted for war crimes.
	He said the people below him are in the military and they should be court-martialed.
	But Hegseth should be prosecuted for this.
	And he's absolutely right.
	Hagseth is so focused on lethality, lethality, lethality.
	He doesn't care anything about legality, as I said before, or morality, the higher moral law.
	Which is, if he's going to put Christian tattoos all over himself, maybe he ought to think about that.
	Maybe he ought to learn something about what he professes to follow and the person that he professes to follow.
	The principles of just war were formulated by Christians, and he should brush up on that, do a little bit of remedial reading.
	He also needs to look at the war manual that defines what war crimes are.
	Trump, again, says, I want all those boats taken out.
	And if we have to, we'll attack on land also.
	Again, he doubles down.
	The pirate king of the Pentagon.
	Maybe what they should do, you know, the casting around, they can't call their football team the Washington Redskins anymore because that's politically incorrect.
	They call them commanders.
	So maybe they should call them the Washington Pirates.
	I don't think there's a football team.
	I've not really paid attention for several decades there, but I don't think there is a Raiders.
	I think still.
	But Oakland.
	We're out of our depth here, folks.
	So that name is already taken.
	But I think Pirates is available.
	I think there's a baseball team called the Pirates or something.
	I don't know.
	Call them the Orange Skins and have that all implied.
	The Orange Skins.
	That's right.
	Piracy implied.
	Raids implied.
	And well, I said before that Mark Kelly, who has been given a golden opportunity to go up against Donald Trump when Donald Trump is 100% wrong, he blew the opportunity, just like this CIA senator.
	He still can't identify any illegal orders, he says, from Trump after the video message to military personnel that they said do not follow illegal orders.
	12 days after telling military personnel that they must disobey illegal orders, Mark Kelly of Arizona appeared on NBC's Meet the Press and still couldn't name an illegal order from Trump.
	He's not trying very hard, actually.
	I couldn't an all list of them.
	Trump accused the gang now known as the Seditious Six of sedition.
	This is coming from the New American, and I got to say, I do not agree with the tone of this article.
	The tone of this article from the New Americans, Mike Kirkwood.
	Also, it's a bit poorly written.
	Now known as the Seditious Six accused them of sedition.
	It's like, oh, really?
	Is that what he accused them of?
	The seditious six?
	Well, you notice how they call them a gang.
	You want to see a gang?
	Go look at Pentagon.
	That's the murdering gang that we're talking about here.
	While Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Mayer said that more than once that the group was confusing young enlisted personnel.
	We don't want to confuse them.
	We don't want them to have to think about law and morality when they're out.
	They just follow orders, right?
	Nuremberg style.
	Politicians warning troops about illegal orders that haven't happened is the same as yelling fire in a theater.
	Reckless, dangerous, and meant to scare people, she said.
	Well, the actions in the Caribbean are all illegal from the start.
	There's no declared war.
	There is no justification to declare a war.
	So you could start right there.
	Many veterans noted that troops don't need to be reminded that they cannot obey illegal orders, says the New American article.
	I disagree.
	It looks to me like they do need to be reminded.
	I mean, they just murdered people floating in the water.
	I tell you, I just, I look at the conservative movement and I despise them as much as I do the lefties out there who are trying to groom little kids.
	They have different crimes that they do, you know, and both sides, the leaders, are into pedophilia and rape.
	But they have different crimes.
	Some of them want to mutilate children.
	Others want to mutilate people who are in the water.
	You tell me the difference between the Republicans and Democrats.
	I had some person said, you know, David Knight just hates everybody.
	I hate these politicians.
	I got to say, I despise what they do.
	Well, so this is looking forward, said Kelly.
	They said, so what specific orders has he given that are unlawful?
	So this is looking forward.
	I'm not going to second guess him on this illegal colonialism that he's got going on down there in Venezuela.
	We know that it's about the oil folks.
	There's no question about it from the very get-go.
	He said, but let me give you a pass, an outline of things that he has said.
	In 2016, said Kelly, Trump said that the U.S. military will follow his illegal orders.
	He was given, he was said something on the debate stage and was reminded that that would be illegal.
	And he said the military will not refuse his orders regardless of whether they're legal or not.
	You know, in the same way that he said, I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and these people would still follow me.
	He said, I can give illegal orders and the military will still follow me.
	And then he goes and gives illegal orders.
	And then he does shoot people not just on Fifth Avenue, but everywhere with his poisonous vaccine.
	Anyway, he said the military will not refuse his order regardless of whether they're legal or not.
	He also talked about shooting protesters in the legs.
	How un-American, how unconstitutional is that?
	Fortunately, there was a Secretary of Defense that stopped this.
	He's also talked about sending troops into U.S. cities to use those cities and people for training.
	He said, so this is a simple message.
	Follow the law.
	And it was looking forward.
	They did a follow-up question to him.
	This is Velker on Meet the Press.
	She said, well, let me talk to you about some of what's happening right now.
	The Washington Post reporting that Hag Seth gave an order to kill everybody.
	Are you calling for U.S. service members to actively disobey orders like those?
	He said, well, if orders are illegal, not only do they not follow them, they're legally required not to follow them.
	So do you think that constitutes an illegal order?
	She asked.
	Well, I think that needs to be investigated.
	Seriously?
	You, as a senator, don't have the courage to call this out.
	How do you expect people, the rank-and-file guys who are out there, how do you expect them to have the courage to stand against this?
	I've said this over and over again with people, with parents, who say, well, I'm sending my kids to school to be salt and light to the other kids in the school.
	I said, do you understand the circumstances that are there?
	They're not on a peer-to-peer relationship with a teacher.
	And there's a lot of peer pressure against them.
	But there's also this authority figure pressure on them.
	You're sending them into a spiritual war they haven't been properly trained and equipped for.
	We don't use child soldiers.
	That's right.
	And yet, you know, here is Kelly saying, well, I think soldiers need to push back against orders when they're in the field, but I'm too afraid to even criticize what Donald Trump has already done, not even what he's proposed that he could do.
	So again, you're required not to follow these orders, just like the Nazi machine gun guy, okay, he's the one who actually killed them.
	He's responsible, but so is the guy who gave him the orders responsible for that.
	He says, as for what would happen to military personnel who refuse to obey orders that they consider illegal, Kelly admitted that that would be their problem.
	He doesn't have the guts to do it, but he expects them to.
	Asked whether he would obey an order to sink a drug boat, Kelly said he's never questioned an order during his career, and he had, he said, attacked boats during the First Gulf War.
	And again, he has also never questioned an illegal Democrat war.
	He has never questioned the unconstitutional drug war either.
	He is a man who has no courage, unfortunately.
	And neither does this CIA senator, Alyssa Slotkin from Michigan.
	She was asked, so do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?
	He was asked that on ABC News.
	And she said, to my knowledge, I'm not aware of things that are illegal.
	There you go.
	So they are writing checks that they are afraid to cash.
	They're telling other people to do it.
	Illegal, what's that?
	I work for the CIA.
	I don't know.
	You don't ever see anything illegal.
	Yeah, if I told you, I'd have to kill you.
	The admiral who ordered the follow-up strike on the alleged drug boats is going to brief lawmakers tomorrow.
	So we'll see what happens with that, talk about that on Friday.
	The U.S. military is becoming more and more religious, however, as the nation remains more secular and moves in the opposite direction.
	That all begs the question as to what is religious, right?
	Is it attending church?
	And that's what the metric is here.
	They look strictly at church attendance.
	What percentage of people go once a week?
	What percentage of people go once a month?
	What percentage of people go more than once a week to church?
	Number of military personnel who attended church weekly has increased from 21% in 2010 to 28%.
	And this is looking at a demographic that is increasingly moving away from church, 18 to 45-year-olds.
	They looked at the people who are not in the military.
	They said during the same time period, the number of surveyed civilians who attended church weekly stayed at 16%, while those who attended more than once declined from 9% to 7%.
	So they said the devotional military members has gone up, while the rest of the population has moved more secular.
	I guess it's because, as they say, there's no atheists in foxholes, you know.
	But when you look at church attendance, there was a lot of talk about the fact that Warpeak was a part of this church plant in Washington, D.C. from Doug Wilson.
	And I got to say, there needs to be some accountability there.
	There needs to be some instruction as to what's going on because it's more than wearing your faith on your sleeve or tattooing it on your arms.
	You are not following the way.
	You're not following Christ when you do this.
	And we need to call this out, whether it's people who are excusing genocide for the Israeli government or it's people who are excusing these war crimes for the Pentagon.
	I'm not going to have any part of it.
	And I hope you don't either.
	We need to call this out.
	If we profess Christ, we need to call these people out for what they're doing.
	I don't want to see this done in my name.
	You know, there's a lot of people who are Jewish who don't like what Bet Netanyahu is doing in their name.
	And I don't like what the American government is doing in my name.
	I don't support this at all.
	Some people are excusing this Venezuelan war, these war crimes and this colonialism, just like they defend the Gaza genocide.
	And, you know, you can throw these terms around like genocide and colonialism and stuff, but in this particular case, the shoe fits, and we should make them wear it.
	You got some comments here.
	That's right.
	Three little birds says I refuse to use pronouns was fired for it from a top five worldwide company.
	It was defended by Littler Mendelsohn, the largest employment law firm.
	Well, good luck with that.
	Good luck.
	Sorry about that.
	Yes.
	Thank you for standing on your principles.
	Yeah.
	That's the key thing.
	You know, and I'll just say to you that I've seen, I've talked to so many people after what has happened in 2020 and 2021, where Biden was using economic pressure to get corporations to force this injection on people, and the military was doing it as well.
	And I've talked to so many people.
	The ones who don't have regrets are the ones who did not cave.
	And many of them wound up, it's not a guarantee, but many of them wound up with better circumstances than they would have had if they'd remained at that company.
	So sometimes, you know, it's just like we tell kids when they're dating, you know, sometimes if you get rejected, you might look back at that at a later date and say, that was a good thing.
	I really dodged a bullet there.
	I didn't realize it.
	I've had in my life many things that I really thought I wanted.
	And looking back on it, I realized just how bad and harmful that would have been if I'd actually gotten what I wanted.
	Defy Tyron 1776 says, DK, don't you think the SEAL team who murdered the people clinging to the boat wreckage should be put on trial for murder?
	Yes, court-martialed, yeah.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	That'd be the approach, as Napolitano said.
	You know, the war crimes, that's what you should put Trump and Hegseth on trial for.
	The military people, from the Admiral on down to the people who pull the trigger, they should be brought up on court-martial because the civilian law does not apply to them.
	So, yeah, I agree.
	He says it's not the order givers who are the most responsible.
	It's the order followers.
	Yeah, I mean, that guy didn't have to pull the machine gun trigger when he shot the prisoners who were no threat to anybody, right?
	Though I would say that I think it's the other way around, that ultimately it's the order of givers that are the most responsible, and it's not just to go after the followers and not the givers.
	SoloCat, 1980.
	It rots from the head down.
	It really does, yes.
	Sorry.
	Yeah.
	Says Trump and Hag Seth don't want any survivors from their boat strikes.
	I've been able to testify against them.
	Dead men tell no tales.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	Absolutely right.
	But they did pick up one survivor after one of these incidents, but I do think that's a big part of it.
	Dead guys don't prosecute.
	Wally Walrus, you have to declare war before there can be fog.
	This is the fog of perpetual conflict, executive action.
	What do we call so bogus says, when was war declared?
	And like we were saying, Three Little Birds says it was declared in the fog.
	Got lots of fog.
	Lots of fog.
	Obscuring everything.
	Yeah, Trump does get a little bit foggy at times, doesn't he?
	Actually, there was an article done about it, and it was like the funniest thing I've heard Colbert say, and I can't remember when, but they were talking about the fact they got the MRI, and people were asking Trump what it was.
	And he goes, I don't know what they did.
	It wasn't the brain.
	I passed those cognitive tests with flying colors and everything.
	And then you had his physician come out and say, well, men his age, we like to get an MRI of general cardiovascular and abdominal health and things like that.
	And so Colbert said, you know what else is good for the health of men his age?
	Retirement.
	I thought that was funny.
	Anyway.
	Brian and Deb McCartney says drugs of mass distraction.
	Trump Burger, I can guarantee there were no drugs or money.
	There was no drugs or money was on the boats.
	The CIA would have taken that off first.
	That's funny.
	Yeah, you want to go after the real source of all this stuff?
	It's not the cartel of the sons.
	It's the cartel of the intelligence agencies out there, the CIA.
	Yeah.
	The cartel of the SOVs.
	Defy Tyrants 1776.
	Government trying to stop people from hurting themselves by willingly taking harmful drugs yet force them to take deadly vaccines.
	LOL can't make this crap up.
	Well, they want to be the ones to get you.
	That's a good point.
	Yeah, the symmetry.
	I've talked about how, in many ways, this is like 2020 and what Trump was able to do with all the absurd lies that he pushed to people.
	And yet, you know, going to kill you by forcing you to take drugs, but they're going to kill other people supposedly to protect the people who are willingly going to take these drugs.
	That's the amazing thing.
	Of course, CIA running the poppy fields so they could have flood the country with an opioid epidemic.
	Nobody connected the dots to that in the mainstream media or most of the alternative media either.
	Pezo Novante 1776, bottom line, a government unbound by the chains of the Constitution and armed to the teeth is much more dangerous than any scourge of drugs.
	I agree.
	Assyrian girl, it's so absurd because she is sucking up to the DC criminals.
	I don't believe Kelly has any normal human empathies.
	They are for sale to the highest bidder.
	Yeah.
	I mean, you could kind of see that there.
	She doesn't have remorse and she doesn't even have any excitement.
	She's just saying things.
	She's just reading off a script.
	I don't think she believes anything she says or ever has.
	She wants attention.
	She wants attention.
	That's the reality of it.
	She'll do anything for it.
	Say anything for it.
	Possum King.
	Kelly did illegal bombing himself.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I never question any orders.
	I kill anybody they tell me to.
	You just tell me who, where, when.
	New Republic Rising 83.
	The truth is there is a buildup of a culture of disregard for ethical combat law.
	It's championed by heroic special forces types, and it comes along with Mission Creep and undeclared unlawful conflict.
	Yeah, when you look at what the SEAL teams are really set up to do, they're set up to go kill people without any declaration of war.
	And that's basically where this all comes from.
	a real we all look at it that's amazing what these guys can do but it's a uh it's like michael crichton jurassic park you know just Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should do it, right?
	You should have those skills to be great if you're using it defensively against people that are actually attacking us.
	But if you go out there playing James Bond, killing people that we've not gone to war with, people that are not even a threat to us.
	Again, going back to that mission in 2019 where they killed all of those North Korean fishermen just because they were afraid they might say something, you know.
	Wally Walrus says, my son is 23 and he is getting ready for the army because he sees no future and is seeking financial security.
	Gen Z sees no future for themselves.
	It's a hard time.
	It's been slowly getting worse and worse.
	Gen Z is now at that age where some of them are fully out of high school and getting out of college and they just are realizing, oh, everything I was promised is a lie.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, we're going to talk about that when we come back.
	The mom and pop businesses are going bankrupt at a record amount.
	And of course, the economy is doing great.
	This is part two of Trump's attack on Middle America and Main Street.
	He loves Wall Street, but he doesn't care about us.
	We're non-essential.
	Hi, Boost says this is literally WMD is all over again by the same war-mongering GOP making up a fake boogeyman to start a fake war.
	And of course, who was it that sold all the stuff and who oversaw the torture and then covered it up?
	Gina Haspel.
	And who did Trump make his head of CIA during his first administration?
	Gina Haspel.
	So he campaigns and saying that the Iraq war was based on a bunch of lies.
	And the other politicians were afraid to say that, just like Mark Kelly is afraid to say that this operation's whole operation down in Venezuela is illegal.
	So the other politicians were afraid to say that it was a war based on a lie.
	Trump says it, and then he puts the liar-in-chief in charge of the CIA.
	Hi, Boost says, Dick Cheney is upset he isn't alive so he could participate.
	He says, is Tony Blair and W. Bush advising Trump?
	Yeah, that's right.
	Same as it ever was.
	They're set up to make a lot of money off of what's going on in Ukraine and these other places.
	Once the shooting stops, they will go in with their reconstruction stuff.
	We're going to take a quick break, folks, and we'll be right back.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	I wish I had a Christmas Night album.
	You can get the Christmas Night album at the DavidNightShow.com for just $13.99.
	It was right in the second floor there, see?
	What'd you wish, George?
	Well, not just one.
	I wish a whole hat full of them.
	First, I'm going to thedavidnightshow.com and purchase the Christmas Night album.
	Then I'm going to listen to Christmas classics like, were you going to throw it up?
	I want the Christmas Night album, too.
	Hey, that's pretty good.
	Buffalo gals, can't you come out town?
	Can't you come home tomorrow?
	David's Christmas Night album includes 21 instrumental Christmas melodies like God Rest You Merry Gentleman, Silent Night, and is all new I'll be home for Christmas.
	What do you want?
	You want the moon?
	Just say the word and I'll throw a lasso around it, pull it down.
	I'll take it.
	In what?
	And then I'll buy you your own download of David Knight's Christmas Night album.
	Elvis.
	Ladies and gentlemen, the Beatles, and the sweet sounds of Motown.
	Find them on the Oldies channel at APSRadio.com.
	Well, Bloomberg reports the mom and pop business bankruptcies hit a record as debts rise.
	Well, the debts rising is an effect, not really the cause of all this stuff.
	And it's kind of interesting.
	They said that there was, and I wasn't aware of this, I knew about the CARES Act and these other things that were supposedly going to help people who were losing their jobs and people were losing their small businesses because they didn't have access to unlimited amounts of capital on Wall Street.
	You know, these people operate outside of market realities.
	And I know that firsthand because we operated for a very long time against Blockbuster Video.
	As soon as they were bought by Viacom, the parent company of CBS and Paramount, they never turned to profit.
	And they continued to operate for 20 years.
	And they operated with very predatory policies against mom and pop stores where we were.
	They would pick one store and they would open up right in front of them, everywhere.
	They buy, spend fabulous amounts of money to buy an out parcel so they could get in front of the store that was already there in line.
	And they did that to put people out of business.
	And they were able to do that even though they were losing money.
	And so when Trump said mom and pop stores were non-essential, what he was essentially doing was recapping what Hillary Clinton said when she was trying to push through Hillary Care.
	People said, you know, small businesses are going to be killed by what you're proposing.
	She said, I can't be bothered by all of these undercapitalized small businesses.
	You know, so if you're little, who cares?
	Not Hillary, not Trump.
	And so as Trump was pushing this lockdown and the first wave of massive disaster for Main Street and Mom and Pop, they also were very kind to put in a federal program that was designed to help the smallest American businesses cut debt and get a fresh start to help you to declare bankruptcy without going through the bankruptcy courts.
	You could have something that they called a subchapter five.
	Made it cheaper and faster to go through bankruptcy rather than having to go through the existing structure that was there.
	Wasn't that nice of them?
	You know, Trump does the lockdowns and says that you're non-essential, and then they set up a new way for you to declare bankruptcy to streamline the process.
	Isn't that nice?
	Maybe what they were thinking of was how to streamline the process so they didn't clog the bankruptcy courts.
	And so now that has been in effect for six years, going back to when Trump did that back in 2020.
	Now high borrowing costs, cautious consumers in the Trump administration's trade war are weighing in on the earnings for the small businesses.
	Again, we said this is going to happen from the very beginning.
	It's pretty obvious.
	Year to date, these subchapter 5 cases have increased more than 8%.
	2,221.
	At the same time, Chapter 11 petitions are up about 1% to a little more than 6,000.
	And so the sub-chapter 5 program began in 2020 as a way to let individuals and small businesses with less than $7 million in debt avoid the cost and delay of using the traditional reorganization process.
	So they come in and they say, you're not essential.
	You will own nothing.
	But hey, we're going to make you happier.
	We're going to take away some of the paperwork for you going bankrupt.
	How about that?
	That's the way that Trump helped people.
	You know, this whole CARES Act thing?
	Massive, massive fraud.
	And yet, apart from the overall fraud aspect of it, was the fraud of Trump saying that it was relief for small businesses.
	More than 50% of the money went to less than 5% of the applicants.
	And it was the big businesses that got the lion's share.
	And I reported on this over and over again as it was happening in 2021, 2022.
	You had these people who had small service businesses, retail type of thing, mom and pop stores.
	And they said they couldn't get anything from the banks.
	Meanwhile, you got the, they redefined, Trump redefined what the definition of a small business was.
	So small business, before that, was a business that had fewer than 500 employees.
	He said, well, we'll make that fewer than 500 employees per location.
	So all of his hotels qualified for it.
	Isn't that nice?
	Well, the Trump tariffs are also going to make toys more expensive this Christmas shopping season.
	Bah humbug.
	I guess we go from orange man to green, from green man to orange man, right?
	Grinch.
	In Trump's first term, he exempted many Chinese toys and household items from tariff hikes.
	This time they're going to be subjected to a 30% import tax.
	And it is amazing the amount of toys that we saw when we were in China.
	We went to a toy market, I guess, but it's like this giant warehouse with all these individual vendors over there.
	It's kind of like amazing.
	I've never seen anything like it.
	They had all their little stalls set up and they were just packed in.
	And we bought a lot of little trinkets and stuff so that we could, we knew it was going to be difficult for our daughter because she didn't speak English.
	We're going to explain to her what was happening.
	She's going to be on a very long plane flight.
	And so Karen planned it out, bought all these little trinkets, and she's going to introduce these new toys to her a little bit at a time on the trip back.
	We had to go through TSA and TSA confiscated every single one of those toys.
	Don't you love TSA?
	I mean, just fantastic.
	And as they're pulling these things out of the bag, she's looking at them like, oh, you know, and no, you can't have that, throwing it away.
	And that started her off right there.
	Anyway, Santa Claus might be able to evade customs checkpoints in TSA as he magically snuggles toys into the country.
	But I don't know.
	We're going to get Customs and Border Patrol after him.
	Maybe they'll show up the next day with a form telling you that you got to pay the tariffs on it.
	About that.
	I'm sorry, is this from the North Pole?
	What did Trump put on the North Pole?
	I mean, he did have, remember McDonald's Island?
	I remember that because it's like, hey, Trump eats there, doesn't he?
	But he put tariffs on McDonald's Island, which has nothing but penguins, I think.
	We need to tariff the North Pole, even though there's no Santa Claus there, right?
	This year, when they do that phony thing where they track Santa Claus around, you're going to have Pete Hegseth come on and just be like, shoot him down!
	Shoot him down now!
	Kill everybody, yeah.
	And then Megan Kelly, kill everybody.
	It'd be like the beginning of Scrooge, right?
	Where they have do you have any idea how many magical reindeer he had pulling his slate?
	You don't need that many if you're just delivering toys.
	Not only that, but look at all the elf slave labor.
	We could have that slave labor here in the United States.
	What's the matter?
	We can't, what's the matter with people that they allow that to happen anyway?
	Imports from China, where the basic toys and most of the basic toys and games are made, will now be subject to a 30% tariff.
	And guess what?
	That's going to be passed on to you.
	He put a 15% tariff on Japan, and lo and behold, it's just a coincidence, I'm sure.
	Nintendo said that they are going to be raising prices by 15%.
	But they don't pass the tariffs on, right?
	They absorb them.
	It's going to be paid by Nintendo.
	It's going to be paid by Japan.
	No, it's going to be paid by the consumers.
	It's a tax on you.
	One of the biggest tax increases in the history of America by this tax and spend Democrat from New York, Donald Trump.
	Anyway, maybe the children, he said, will have two dollars instead of $30, says the man who played House with Little Girls and Jeffrey Epstein.
	So, again, he did call out Tim Waltz, not for being a criminal, but for being retarded.
	I guess he's retarded because he got caught, right?
	So now a Somali-run election scheme is breaking on local news there.
	You've got a lot of people, whistleblowers, saying that they told Waltz about this, but they were shut down.
	Many of them were threatened over this stuff instead of action being taken.
	Benny Johnson tweeted out: he said, Over 400 Minnesota Department of Human Services employees have accused Governor Waltz of ignoring widespread Somali community fraud warnings and retaliation against whistleblowers.
	After months of reports, the whistleblowers were ignored or punished, and after the state watched more than a billion taxpayer dollars disappear into the black abyss of shell nonprofits and fake meal programs, Waltz is officially under investigation.
	Washington was forced to step in because Minnesota's own leadership refused to protect its citizens and its money.
	And I imagine a lot of this money is coming from Washington, so they can say that it was mismanagement of federal funds.
	A major House committee and the Treasury Department have opened investigations, and the early statements coming out of Congress are, well, quite blistering to say the least.
	And one person, Kevin Dalton, has said, Well, I know everybody's angry about Tim Waltz and the billion-dollar welfare fraud in Minnesota, but I find it strange that nobody seems to be talking about the $50 billion in welfare fraud that Gavin Newsom has amassed in California.
	We'll just wait.
	They will be talking about it.
	Probably waiting until they get a little bit closer to the election.
	That's the same kind of thing that they did with Hunter Biden's laptop.
	And we knew about that long before it became a mainstream Republican narrative.
	And they did that.
	They did it too late.
	And then, of course, it got covered up.
	And if they had done it earlier, they might have been able to fight back against the mainstream media and the government cover-up of the Hunter Biden laptop issue.
	But they'll probably do the same thing with Newsom Wake.
	Yeah, you've got to pace yourself when revealing your enemy scandals.
	The American public has such a short attention span.
	If you start talking about Gavin Newsom now, by the time he's actually a threat, no one will care anymore.
	He's already inoculated against it.
	Nothing ever happens to these people.
	They simply get trotted out, and the public looks at them and goes, oh, yeah, that was bad.
	And then they go back to whatever they were doing.
	There are two schools of thought about that.
	One of the schools of thought is that, well, we're going to drop this on election night Eve, some scandalous thing about somebody.
	They did that with, I think it was John McCain.
	They made some statement about how he had an illegitimate black baby or something like that, which was a totally mischaracterization of what had happened.
	I don't know if that was him or not.
	Anyway, they do that type of thing.
	Wait to the very last minute like you're in some kind of an online auction.
	We have to put him in the bed.
	We've got to snipe him with a scandal right at the last second.
	But the other part of it is if you're going to throw out something that's got a little bit of splining to do, you better give yourself enough time to splain it.
	And you better give yourself enough time to countersplain it when the other people come back with their excuses for it.
	GOP Senator is saying that the Minnesota governor should be jailed over these fraud allegations.
	And this is Tommy, I think it is Tubberville.
	I'm not sure if it's Tuber or Tubber.
	I think it's Tubber.
	I think somebody corrected me with that.
	I don't listen to TV news.
	I just read it.
	So I sometimes don't understand how to pronounce these names.
	I put the emphasis on the wrong syllable with some of these people.
	If they wanted their names pronounced correctly, they should have them spelled phonetically.
	He said, Tim Waltz is directly responsible, all uppercase, for the all-uppercase $1 billion in fraud that is funding all uppercase Islamic terrorists.
	Well, that's true.
	And then, you know, we look at this.
	Lou Rockwell had an op-ed piece about hate speech, made it onto Zero Hedge.
	He said, you know, what is hate speech?
	Well, we're told that it is negative remarks about various groups, including women, blacks, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims.
	It's alleged to have a negative effect on members of the group who hear or who see the speech.
	And it encourages people to hate them and it cements negative stereotypes about them in people's minds.
	Free speech may have some value, they say, but whatever value it has has been outweighed by the evil of the hate speech.
	Almost any group can claim to be victimized by hate speech, except for white heterosexual males and Christians.
	But hate speech applies primarily to members of the so-called protected classes.
	Lou Warkerall says, from a libertarian standpoint, the question of banning so-called hate speech is a no-brainer.
	You don't do it.
	Banning any kind of speech, whether it's good or bad, is incompatible with a free society.
	Yes, that's absolutely true.
	As a matter of fact, we had Trump.
	Here's his definition of hate speech that he gave us just recently.
	What do you make?
	Pam Bondi saying she's going to go out for hate speech.
	Is that, I mean, a lot of people, a lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech.
	She'll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly.
	It's hate.
	You have a lot of hate in your heart.
	Maybe I have to come after ABC.
	Well, ABC paid me $16 million recently for a form of hate speech, right?
	Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech.
	So maybe they'll have to go after you.
	Yeah, none of that is true.
	It just shows what utter contempt Trump has for the Constitution Bill of Rights, doesn't it?
	What does it say in the Bill of Rights?
	Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
	As Lou Rockwell says, no law means no law.
	But of course, these laws have you got executive orders like Trump, or if you can do lawfare like Trump, or if you can use the FCC to threaten and blackmail people into settling with your personal lawsuit.
	That includes laws against so-called hate speech.
	And we're in a difficult situation with this.
	So, you know, we'll talk about what's going on.
	Javier Malai converted to Judaism and not just any Judaism, but to the Chabad-Lubavitch sect.
	And he has switched around Argentina from being one of the biggest critics of Israel to being one of the most fawning followers of Israel.
	And so he's coming up with something that he calls the Isaac Accords, coming after the Abraham Accords again, right?
	I wonder who's going to be sacrificed in the Isaac Accords.
	But yeah, he knows where his bread is buttered, and he's going to be able to get a lot of money and other things from Israel for pushing their interests.
	As a matter of fact, I look at this, and I think perhaps this is the answer as to why this guy, who is, you know, he's hanging out with Trump and Trump likes him and everything, but look at what Trump did, how the Trump administration gave him $20 billion and said, you know, we're going to arrange for another $20 billion in private funds to be put together.
	Maybe that's going to be some of the Jewish billionaire friends of Trump to put together money for them.
	But perhaps that is why he gets such special treatment and moves to the front of the line instead of anything being done for the farmers or for the ranchers in this country.
	And I think that I've not seen anything about the alleged promises of helping the farmers who've been hurt by this trade war that Trump has created.
	You had China come back and agree to buy some more soybeans from American farmers, but that lasted for like a week or so.
	And then they stopped it again.
	So it was just virtue signaling to Trump so he could declare a victory.
	But he puts Israel first.
	He puts anybody who is an ally of Israel ahead of the American farmers and ranchers.
	The Isaac Accords are being promoted in partnership with Washington.
	They're modeled after the Abraham Accords, which normalize relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including the UAE, Bahran, Bahrain, I should say, and Morocco.
	Malai said Argentina would serve as a, quote, pioneer alongside the U.S. to promote the new framework to other Latin American countries, including Uruguay, Panama, and Costa Rica.
	So there you go.
	This is the kind of colonialism that the Israelis do.
	Our colonialism is what you see happening in Venezuela.
	We just go in and kill everybody and take the oil.
	They have a much more subtle way of buying influence and buying control of other countries.
	Foreign Minister of Israel, Gideon Saar, praised Malai's love of Judaism.
	He said that Malai transformed Argentina from a critic of Israel to one of its staunchest supporters.
	That was actually said by the Times of Israel.
	He was raised a Catholic, but he is now converted to Judaism and is paying off handsomely for him.
	There you go.
	There's how Israel is blessing people.
	They bless the politicians who do what they say.
	They bless them with money and other things.
	They bless them with underage girls and massage agents and all kinds of wonderful goodies, I'm sure.
	That's right.
	Argentine officials said that possible joint projects with Israel in the fields of technology, security, and economic development are already under consideration.
	They'll teach them how to surveil their people and control them.
	Well, there's an op-ed piece on RT from Rachel Marsden, the Epstein-Israel link that nobody wants you to take seriously.
	While trafficking young girls, he was also part of the effort to export military-grade systems to governments around the world.
	And that's what this is really about, these Isaac Accords, right?
	They're going to pay off Javier Millai with this kind of stuff.
	It's just more of the Jeffrey Epstein issues.
	She said, when I first moved to New York, I walked into my new dentist's office, and I genuinely wondered whether I'd accidentally wandered onto a Victoria's secret audition.
	Was Jeffrey there, Lex Wexner?
	The waiting waiting room.
	Waiting room rich Jewish potential pedophile was it?
	Who knows?
	The waiting room, she said, was full of stunning young women.
	Eventually, I learned the dentist shared space with a modeling agency.
	You couldn't tell who was getting veneers and who was getting a contract until they were halfway down the hallway.
	Epstein's whole operation was like a perverted crossover episode of Law and Order meets House of Cards.
	The salacious half got all the airtime, but the geopolitical part seems to have largely ended up in the cutting room floor.
	Jeremy Scahill's Dropsite News recently published inbox receipts showing that in 2006, Epstein teamed up with lawyer Alan Dershowitz to smack down, quote, the Israeli lobby and U.S. foreign policy, unquote, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.
	Dershowitz wrote that the rebuttal, wrote the rebuttal that he called debunking the newest and oldest Jewish conspiracy.
	So John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt do the Israel lobby and U.S. foreign policy, and he does the rebuttal.
	Epstein blasted it out to his rich and powerful pals, perhaps a little light reading en route to Epstein Island or while being rubbed down by a member of Epstein's harem.
	The moment anyone points out that a certain foreign government might be exercising influence, there's always someone who starts shouting about bigotry and playing the race card.
	And I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
	If you criticize a government, that is not racism.
	And we're criticizing the government.
	And there are Jewish people who criticize Netanyahu and his government.
	As a matter of fact, he just had to make the case that he wants a pardon.
	And why is that?
	He's asking the Israeli president for a pardon.
	Trump has asked the same people to pardon Netanyahu.
	What is it that he's doing that he needs a pardon for?
	And again, it's internal issues.
	He was not very popular in Israel.
	He's much more popular on Capitol Hill.
	The seven richest billionaires are all Zionists who are using the CIA to control the media, says Brian Shulhave.
	Alan McLeod of Mint Press News has written about another excellent investigative report focusing on the current big tech billionaires who are all buying up legacy corporate media companies.
	Again, this is Larry Ellison, and he has not only bought the Paramount stuff and all the subordinate properties there, but he's moving to also get Warner.
	And that would be CNN.
	He's angling for CNN here.
	This is the new conservatism that is attempting to silence any opposition to their Zionist agendas.
	A handful of us determine what will be on the evening news and the broadcast, or for that matter in the New York Times, Washington Post, or Wall Street Journal.
	Indeed, it is a handful of us with this awesome power, strongly editorial power.
	And that is coming from Walter Cronkite, who said that.
	We have to decide which news items out of hundreds available we are going to expose that day.
	And those news stories available to us already have been called and recalled by persons who are far outside our control.
	Well, Walter Cronkite said that at the same time he was really participating in the Operation Mockingbird stuff.
	So is this a cry for help?
	Was he blinking, saying, help?
	I'm under control, blinking in Morse code to tell people that he was under the control of the CIA.
	Well, the Paramount Skydance, the Ellison-owned company, of course, has moved very quickly to put a very strong Zionist in charge of their news organization, Barry Weiss.
	And this is going to be a consolidation of media like we have not seen before.
	I remember years and years ago, we talked about how there was like five companies and how there used to be dozens of news organizations all consolidated down at that point in time.
	Five companies that were getting the studios, just like Vicom had Paramount studios and had CBS as well.
	So you saw that kind of consolidation.
	Now they're moving to bring into the consolidation tent social media.
	And that's what Olson is working on as well now.
	But not just that, but then taking these conglomerate holding companies that were already really concentrated and then taking over another one of those like Time Warner CNN companies.
	Now he wants to take that over as well.
	It's really amazing when you look at how consolidated it has become and how they are going to control information.
	So we really do appreciate your support here.
	We try to do the best that we can to stay out of the mainstream media.
	We look at what they have to say.
	We question it and we should all question with critical thought what they have to say.
	But the narratives that are going to be generated, it's going to be a very difficult time for anybody to be heard.
	And so we really do appreciate your support.
	And we're going to take a quick break.
	And I have some names that I want to read as well before we take the break.
	But go ahead and say, every legislator that went along with the COVID fraud and every member of the military who fought in illegal wars has blood on their hands, so no surprise they won't accuse others.
	KWD 68, you must first start the war to end the war.
	Nibaru 2029.
	Major General Smedley Butler stated the truths of all wars.
	Three little birds says, fighting pro se after my lawyer from the Alliance Defending Freedom was bought out by another law firm overseen by Littler Mendelson.
	Freedom of religion and speech is dead.
	Wow.
	Skunkala Rose Gardens says SEALs used to be a hostage rescue team like Dutch and Predator.
	Dutch and Predator.
	Oh, the character.
	Yeah.
	Dutch was.
	Well, we ain't got time to bleed now.
	Ain't got time to bleed.
	I don't remember which character, was it Jesse Ventura that said that?
	Yeah.
	I don't remember which character.
	I don't know if he was Dutch or not.
	I don't remember that movie that well.
	I just don't remember mine.
	remember the names of the guys i know there's arnold ventura and that other i can never remember the black actor's name um he was in um He was in that Rocky movie.
	He was Apollo Creed.
	Yeah, I almost had his name, but I'm getting old.
	I drove it off.
	Yeah, we do our best we can.
	But I do have some names here that I remember, and I have seen these names over and over again because it's usually the same people who contribute to make this program go.
	People like Gretchen, thank you very much.
	Alexander W. Maurice G. Julie W. Mary Moore, Sean Savka, Susan L. Kenneth C., Rose G., Julie W. Gregory I. Benjamin R. Michael P. Thank you to all these people.
	These are people who contributed on Zelle.
	Susan L. Michael P. Sally O. Mitchell M, Michael P. Gretchen C again, Amy B. Peter, Adam D. Lois N. Keith, Lois I, sorry, Susan L. Matthew M. Gregory C. Susan L. Scott L. Terrence D, Lisa K.
	And thank you, Lisa.
	I've seen your name here many times, but that was a very generous contribution.
	I appreciate that at the end of the month.
	Ronald H, Marilyn G., Ryan F. Janice W. William D. William W, and Michael L. Thank you so much, all of you.
	And that is, those are people who've contributed on Zell, and I had not mentioned their names until since the beginning of the beginning of November.
	I can't reach this thing here.
	And Karen just handed me people who have contributed in terms of checks.
	And Joni S. Thank you very much.
	I appreciate that.
	That is, I believe, was that, Karen didn't write that down, but I believe that a new contributor and a very large contribution, I believe.
	That was the name that was there.
	Matthew H, Lois L., and Gary B. Thank you so much.
	Those are people who contributed by checks.
	And while we're here doing the roll call of people who produce the show, because that is what produces the show, the people who write the checks.
	I want to thank those on Cash App.
	It's a short list who contributed on Cash App this month.
	Christopher, Jason J, Dustin W. Brian P., Jeffrey A. Francis E. Dave W. Hollis H. Thank you very much.
	And the bottom line is that we finished the month just over 80%.
	And so I really do appreciate all of your support.
	It worked out much better than we were thinking was going to work out.
	And that came in at the very last part of the month.
	And so we really do appreciate that.
	Thank you very much.
	We're going to take a quick break, folks, and we will be right back.
	Let's see.
	Oh, yes, we're going to be right back with Eric Peters, who is our guest.
	So stay with us.
	We're going to talk about mobility and liberty, which we should always be thinking about.
	be right back
	we're listening to the david knight show If you like the Eagles on the Dark Desert Highway, the cars and Healy Lewis in the news.
	You'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
	Download our app or listen now at APSradio.com.
	Joining us now, and it's always a pleasure to have Eric on.
	It's been too long since we talked.
	Eric Peters of EricPetersAutos.com, a real soulmate when it comes to the issues of liberty and mobility, as these companies like to call it.
	But, you know, it's really driving cars is what we think of.
	We think of mobility.
	I'm not looking at getting into some self-driving taxi, and I'm not looking at, I don't think of that as mobility.
	I think of mobility as being able to use a car to go where I want, when I want, and not have to follow a schedule from some mass transportation thing or get into a car that's owned by these corporate conglomerates.
	But thank you for joining us, Eric.
	Oh, thank you, David.
	I always enjoy being here.
	And by the way, whenever I hear that word mobility, I almost think of people in wheelchairs.
	I'm a car guy.
	I enjoy driving and I like it.
	Well, they want to break our legs, don't they?
	I mean, they sure seem to want to.
	And it's really something, you know, when I think about how this country has changed in that respect, just over the course of the last 40 years, you know, when I was in high school, most guys loved cars, and a lot of girls like cars too.
	That's right.
	Now, you know, they have succeeded so effectively in alienating people from cars.
	I get it.
	You know, they become appliances.
	They've become soulless.
	And on top of that, they become just impossibly expensive for ordinary people to even consider buying anymore.
	So no wonder people are turning off to cars.
	And that's unfortunate, getting us back to this whole idea of mobility, which really just means, as you said, being able to just go where you want to go without being leashed, without having to take your hat off and beg for.
	Yeah, there's a song about that.
	Got to go where you want to go, do what you want to do.
	What happened to that, America?
	Yeah, what happened to that song?
	We don't hear that anymore.
	It's kind of like the other thing we used to say when I was younger.
	People would say, somebody say, well, can I do this?
	And it's like, hey, it's a free country.
	You don't hear anybody say that anymore, do you?
	No, I don't think I've heard anybody say that since probably 9-11.
	It's been 25 years now.
	But that's, you know, at least that's a sign of psychological health.
	At least people aren't so deluded as to think that we still live in a free country.
	That's right.
	But they are deluded enough to think that they should make a federal case out of everything.
	That was the other thing.
	Hey, don't make a federal case out of it.
	You know, if somebody's making a big deal out of it.
	But now we make a federal case out of everything.
	Every problem must be solved and managed by government.
	And it has to be done by government at the highest level.
	Not even that, but now it has to be done by the president who will save us from all evil.
	He's this messianic figure.
	You know, I was just talking yesterday about this article out of the Atlantic, and they were talking about a study that was done by some people out of the UK.
	They came to the same conclusions that Strauss and Howe did about the fourth turning.
	They went back 5,000 years of history.
	One of the things they said was, you know, the corruption and the decay in institutions, but also people start getting very messianic about their leaders.
	And I thought, yeah, that's what I see all the time about MAGA.
	You know, it's got to be Trump.
	He's got some special mission from God.
	You know, he's specially anointed and all the rest of this stuff.
	It is truly amazing.
	They're so desperate for a Messiah that they'll even project that onto somebody like Donald Trump.
	Sometimes it's jaw-dropping.
	I'm a professional writer, so usually I'm not at a loss for words.
	But when it comes to Trump, I often find my jaw hitting the floor, my eyes boggle like Kash Patel, and I what am I going to even say about this stuff?
	That's right.
	It truly is amazing.
	Well, you told me when we were just connected, and you said there's some interesting news about Miata that I don't think I'm going to like.
	What is that news?
	Well, just some background.
	The Miata's been around since 1989.
	They introduced it as a 90 model, and it has been for many decades one of the most successful models that Mazda has ever brought out because anybody who's driven one will tell you it's just it is one of the most enjoyable, fun cars that you can possibly get and drive.
	The problem is that it's gotten to be pretty expensive.
	The current model, 2025, the base price is nearly $30,000.
	To put that in some perspective, back in 1990, it was just over $13,000.
	Wow.
	Now, granted, some of that is inflation, and some of that, of course, are what I call compliance costs, you know, having to have multiple airbags in the things and all of the other stuff that's been added to vehicles that has been raising the costs.
	People talk about inflation, and of course, that's true, but the thing that's important to understand is that people's earning power hasn't tracked with the devaluation of buying power.
	That's really what inflation is.
	So back in 1990, regular Americans could afford to have two cars or even more.
	They could afford to have the fun car.
	They get the Miata as the weekend car, the track car, the fun day car, right?
	Summer car, yeah.
	But they also had, you know, you got to have something that has more than two doors and more than two seats if you've got kids.
	You've got a family, you're going to need something that's practical.
	So they would buy the practical car for that purpose, but they'd have the Miata for fun.
	Well, now things have gotten to be so tight that most people can only afford one car, if they can even afford that.
	So there aren't many people left who can still afford a $30,000 fun car like a Miata and a $30,000 crossover on top of that and the cost of insurance and everything else that goes along with it.
	So what are they doing?
	Well, when you're faced with the choice between the practical and the fun, most people are going to have to pick the practical.
	That's just the way life is.
	So it's not that the Miata has lost its appeal.
	The problem is that there are not enough people anymore who can afford it to sustain the car as a viable enterprise for Mazda.
	And so apparently that's why they're thinking about canceling it.
	Wow.
	Well, I got mine.
	As long as the government doesn't find some way to declare it illegal on the streets, I'm okay with it.
	I do have mine.
	And from a practical standpoint, there's this, Eric.
	Groceries have gotten so expensive that about all we can fit in the car will fit in the back of the Miata truck.
	That's right.
	And there's another facet to this that's kind of interesting.
	An additional rumor is that they're not going to cancel it, but what they're going to do is put a hybrid drivetrain into it for the next generation.
	The current car has been out since I think 2016.
	So it's getting a little old, you know, in terms of product cycles.
	And that the reason for that is the reason why you're seeing so many hybrid vehicles now, everything.
	It used to be that there was the Prius and maybe one or two other hybrid cars on the market.
	And they were marketed chiefly toward people who really wanted hyper-efficiency above everything else.
	There's a market for that.
	I want to do a virtue signal about their greenness.
	That too.
	But now you may have noticed, if you look at the new car landscape, practically everything is hybrid now, to some degree or another.
	It's either a mild hybrid or a full hybrid or something.
	And the reason for that, of course, has to do with the federal government continuing to require ever stricter mileage and so-called emissions standards, which chiefly means carbon dioxide, that awful gas that plants have used to metabolize and produce oxygen for us so that we can breathe.
	Trump, by the way, today is supposedly going to make an announcement about CAFE, the corporate average fuel economy standards.
	And we'll see whether it's any meaningful reduction or simply to kind of riff on Orwell's 1984.
	Remember when the people were so happy because Big Brother had decided to increase the choco ration, when in fact, of course, it had been decreased.
	So, you know, what they had been hinting at was that they were going to just roll them back or keep them at where they were in 2020.
	Well, the reason everything's being hybridized right now is precisely because the only way to comply with the 2020 standards was to build these hybrids, which cycle the engine off as often as possible and put smaller and smaller engines in cars.
	It's the only way that they can achieve compliance with these federal diktats.
	So unless we see them actually rolled back significantly, or better yet, eliminated altogether, I think we're going to see more and more hybrids.
	And we're also going to see fewer and fewer interesting cars like the Miata available for people.
	Well, in terms of what Trump is doing, anything less than a complete shutdown of the CAFE regime is not anything that I would be favorable of or applaud.
	But if they roll it back a little bit, you know, it'll be pushed back with the next one.
	What they really need to do is to go back and change the or get rid of Nixon's EPA and take away their power to regulate air pollution, right?
	That is the emission standards.
	That needs to be taken away from the EPA and the EPA needs to be shut down.
	I mean, let's not just stop with the CAFE rules.
	Let's get rid of the EPA and let's get rid of this finding that they can tell us about all these gases because that is a real fraud.
	We've got EV pollution is being ignored for this fake climate crisis is the headline of a WhatsApp.com article.
	And it's absolutely true.
	They ignore the pollution from the EVs.
	But I think the biggest glaring hypocrisy with all of this has in the past been that they would ignore the two biggest polluters on earth, China and India.
	They could make as many power plants as they wanted to and continue to make them, put no cleaning devices on them whatsoever.
	And this was supposed to address a global issue.
	Well, how does that address a global issue?
	It's nonsense.
	But now we've had this kind of come home in the sense of the AI data centers.
	They want to put these AI data centers out there.
	So they're obviously not interested in emissions anymore.
	And this has really made outrage a lot of the environmentalists that are out there.
	But it is just another example of how it's real hypocrisy.
	It's not a real problem.
	It certainly is not existential.
	And it is, if it's in their advantage to do it, and it is in their advantage for the AI stuff because that's all about surveillance and control.
	That is the killer app.
	And so they're going to do whatever they have to take.
	And they don't care if we own anything.
	They don't care if we're able to go anywhere.
	And they don't care if we've got any electricity.
	You and I have said that for the longest time.
	They don't even want us to have electric vehicles.
	They don't want us to have electricity.
	Nevertheless, own a car.
	So that's where this stuff is all going.
	But when you talk about the Miata, that is such a perversion of the whole idea.
	The whole idea of the Miata was to make it incredibly light and simple.
	And so a lot of times people are talking about modifying the Miata.
	I mean, there's a company called Flying Miata, and it's kind of interesting what they do with it.
	Since it's such a lightweight car, they would shove in a V8 engine into the Miata, and I would read with curiosity about it, but it was something that I never wanted because then you got to get this heavy transmission.
	And that was one of the nice things about the Miata was how it shifted and very responsive and how it could turn on a dime.
	And it was all really about being a momentum car rather than a zero to 60 car, right?
	And so if these people are going to put in there the, you know, all the edited weight and all the rest of the stuff to make it a hybrid, and to make it complicated, to make it expensive, they might as well cancel it.
	Well, I agree.
	And it just speaks to the kind of tone deafness of the people who are running these car companies.
	You'll see this happening across the industry.
	For example, the Dodge, the people in charge of Dodge, who thought it would be a fine idea to take the Challenger and the Charger, which were popular cars, sold well, and turn the thing into an EV.
	And not only an EV, an EV with a base price that was $20,000 higher than the previous gas engine model.
	And they thought that that would sell.
	What I'm trying to get at is that they were showing contempt for their own buyer demographic.
	Oh, yeah.
	Or Jeep.
	I'm sure you're aware of Jeep.
	Jeep is this French company, and they have upscaled the Jeeps so much that nobody can, their market can't afford it.
	People wanted something that was rugged and affordable.
	And that's the same kind of thing they're doing to the Miata.
	They don't want to, everybody wants to make exactly the same car, and they all want to upscale everything because they understand how expensive cars are getting, and they know that only the really rich can afford this stuff.
	So it's going to become a plaything for the rich.
	Probably, I don't know if it'll be in my lifetime because I'm getting at the end of it, but probably in your lifetime, you'll probably see the idea that owning a car is like having a private plane today.
	Oh, sure.
	It's going to be a reversion to the early days of the car industry or the car world.
	If you went back to, say, about 1905 or so, the only people who owned a car were extremely wealthy people.
	Go watch episodes of Downton Abbey, the BBC show about that era.
	And you'll see.
	Toad of Toad Hall, right?
	Yes.
	He could afford a car, and he didn't really care what the fines were like.
	He was very much like Elon Musk, who opened up his, he opened up a couple of businesses there not too far from where we used to live in Texas.
	He had boring and he had, I think it was, I can't remember, maybe it was SpaceX or something, but it was not, it was not, didn't have anything to do with the launching thing.
	And he was violating all kinds of rules from the Department of Transportation, as well as dumping wastewater directly into the Colorado River.
	He didn't care.
	They kept fining him and they gave him the maximum amounts of fines and he didn't care.
	So they said, well, we need to raise the fines up.
	It's like, well, you know what?
	They raise the fines up.
	It's going to be applied against people who can't afford it.
	And you're not going to be able to raise a fine up high enough to affect Elon Musk under any circumstances.
	So he was kind of like Toad of Toad Hall, you know.
	Right.
	You know, here's something to kind of explain the point to people who may not be familiar with the history of it.
	It used to be that when you opened the door of a General Motors vehicle, you would see this little badge on the sill and it would say body by Fisher.
	Yeah.
	Do you remember that?
	Oh, yeah.
	And that is something that harkens back to the days of what are called coach-built cars.
	Before the Model T, this is around the turn of the last century or 1900 or so.
	If you wanted a car, you went to a coach builder and you would specify what you wanted.
	And it was all custom.
	Everything was made to order.
	And obviously, only very wealthy people could afford a vehicle like that.
	So it was a rich man's toy.
	And, you know, Henry Ford came along and had the effrontery to simplify the thing and to mass produce the thing that had common parts that were stamped out.
	And so that anybody who worked at a Ford plant could afford a car.
	And for 100 years afterward, people like you and I, regular people, could afford to have a car.
	Well, they're trying to bring us back to that era when vehicles were luxury items that only the very affluent people in society could afford.
	It's really despicable.
	And I wanted to mention something else to get back to what you were mentioning before about the whole emissions/slash climate control fraud.
	People don't realize that there are EVs that you can get in Europe.
	I did an article the other day about a little car called the Micro Microlina.
	Did you happen to catch that?
	No, I didn't say what?
	The Micro Microlina?
	Oh, it's cute as a button.
	Boutros Gali, so nice that they named it twice, right?
	What it basically is, is a small electric car that's essentially, it looks just like the old BMW Iseta.
	Do you remember the Isetta?
	Was that the one that opened in the front?
	Yes, exactly.
	I've actually set in one of those up in Chicago.
	Yeah, they had it as a display in a garment store there.
	So the same concept.
	It's just a little EV.
	It's not designed to go ludicrously fast.
	It's designed to be an urban, suburban runabout little car.
	And it costs about $16,000.
	Why can't we have that?
	Wow.
	I attack electric cars all the time, but fundamentally what I'm attacking is the way they're being forced on people and the way alternatives are being taken away from people, not the EV as such.
	I really don't have a problem with, you know, why can't people buy a $16,000 basic car if they don't need ludicrous speed?
	They don't need to go on the highway for several hundred miles.
	And the point is, like, if we, if it truly is the case that we're facing this existential threat, the climate is changing.
	You know, we're all going to die unless we don't drive electric cars.
	Well, why wouldn't they want to encourage these affordable little electric cars that people could actually buy, as opposed to these elitist cars?
	These EVs that, you know, we're allowed to buy $50,000, $60,000 electric cars, but we can't buy the little $16,000 electric car that you can buy in Europe.
	It just speaks to the disingenuousness of the narrative, the way they're trying to tell you that, you know, you have to make this transition because if you don't, we're all going to die in the climate catastrophe.
	Well, that's nonsense.
	If that were true, they'd be doing everything conceivable to encourage these low-cost, efficient, simple little cars.
	That's right.
	It's just like the pandemic.
	If they really believed everybody was going to die, they'd let us try some alternatives to their vaccine.
	But the plan had been that they were going to lock us down until they got their vaccine ready and then they were going to inject everybody and all the companies harmless with what they did.
	But, you know, that was another smoking gun about that fraud.
	But, you know, as you're pointing out, these little things like that.
	And I remember there was also the Messerschmitt.
	Do you remember that?
	That was featured in Brazil.
	That was the car that the character drove.
	I've never seen one of those in person, but I have set in the BMW Iseta.
	I've said in that thing.
	But, you know, these things are basically golf carts.
	Just own it.
	Sure.
	Why not?
	You know, I mean, back when I was in college, I drove a 74 Beetle.
	Loved the car, but really, it wasn't much more than a golf cart.
	You know, it had trouble maintaining 65 miles an hour on anything that was at all inclined.
	That was pretty much.
	If you had a downhill stretch and the wind was at your back, you might be able to get up to about 75 miles an hour in a Beetle.
	It was fine.
	It was cheap.
	It allowed me to get on wheels so that I didn't have to walk or take a bus.
	And that's why I'm kind of so annoyed about the fact that you can't buy new vehicles like that little inexpensive EV that's available in Europe, because after all, if that thing were on the market as a used vehicle, it would probably cost only $7,000 or $8,000, you know, after a couple of years of depreciation.
	And imagine, you know, you're an 18-year-old kid and you don't have a lot of money, but you'd like to have a car.
	So, you know, here's a car that you could that would work as your first car.
	And my point is, you know, we're being denied all these alternatives.
	It's no longer the case that the market responds to what people want.
	That's right.
	It's what the government demands, and it's one size fits all.
	And that's why, you know, you hear everybody complaining about, oh, they all look the same.
	Well, there's a reason for that.
	The reason they all look the same is because they all have to comply with the same government demands.
	That's right.
	Yeah, you remember I grew up in Florida, and so the Volkswagen that I aspired to have was the Dune Buggy.
	I didn't care if that was practical or not.
	And then really doubled down with a Thomas Crown affair that had Steve McQueen driving one of those.
	Remember that?
	I forget what the company was that put those in there.
	We just called them.
	Yeah, the Manx.
	That's right.
	The Manx.
	And we just called them Dune Buggies for that.
	But Karen's first car was a Pento.
	And that was another example.
	I remember you talk about how that was your right of passage.
	That was how you knew you were an adult and how you now had freedom was having the wheels, right?
	And so I remember scrutinizing the stuff and figuring out how much I would have to work in order to save up and buy a Pento before I was able to drive because they were very cheap.
	I remember they were like, you know, $1,400 or something new.
	It was incredible how cheap they were.
	Of course, the dollar was, I had a lot more purchasing power than it does now.
	But, you know, Karen got one of those.
	It had rubber mats, you know, not carpet, of course, hand-cranked windows and all that kind of stuff.
	The trunk was so thin that when you dropped the trunk, it didn't have a hatchback on hers, but it had a little small trunk that was maybe about a foot wide, a foot deep, you know.
	And when you dropped it, it just shook.
	It was such thin metal.
	And of course, you know, they were infamous for exploding when they were hit in the back.
	But they cut every corner that they could, including the safety equipment to keep it from exploding when it was hit in the back.
	But it was what she needed, and she was able to get one used.
	And fortunately for her, before anything happened, if she had an accident, somebody stole it from her.
	We were all laughing about it.
	It's like, who would steal this thing?
	Not only was it that, but she had a slow leak in her radiator.
	And I was going to fix it over the weekend.
	But it was like Thursday.
	She goes out to get in the car and she's got her water jug with her that she's going to top it up with before she goes to work.
	And the car was gone.
	She called me up and she said, You didn't bring me home last night, right?
	I drove home last night.
	He's like, Yeah, that's right.
	She goes, My car is gone.
	It took us a while to actually pinch ourselves and wake ourselves up to the fact that somebody had stolen the thing.
	He was like, Who would steal this?
	And everybody joked, said you leave it running with the keys in the car in a bad neighborhood or something to get this to happen.
	But it was transportation.
	And sometimes that's what you need.
	And they don't want us to have that anymore.
	Yeah, no, everybody needs that.
	You know, Leon Mococo, who was at Ford at the time and who was responsible for the Pinto, decreed that it would be kept under $2,000, brand new.
	And they managed to do that.
	Think about that.
	Imagine that.
	A brand new car.
	Now, granted, inflation and everything, but still $2,000 for a brand new car, meaning that five or six years down the road, cars like that were abundant on the used car market for kids who didn't have a lot of money.
	I mean, just like you, when I was that age, when I was in high school, I saved the money that I earned from cutting grass and shoveling snow and all that other stuff in my McDonald's after-school money so I could buy a car.
	You know, everybody knows that today it's almost impossible for a teenager to work a part-time job or cut grass and be able to afford anything as far as a car goes because they're so expensive.
	And that's really tragic.
	It's really sad.
	And it's hurting not just teenagers who are trying to become adults, but people on the lower end of the economic spectrum.
	They're limited.
	Their options are limited.
	It's not just about, hey, I want to go for a joyride.
	If you can't drive to work, your work options are limited.
	If you can only go wherever the bus goes or the train goes, that means you can only get certain kinds of jobs.
	And it probably means you're going to have to live in an urban area.
	But guess what?
	Everything's more expensive in the urban area than it is farther out.
	So really, it's a kind of an assault on the, you know, it's ironic, isn't it?
	You know, we've heard from the Democrats and the left for years about the plight of the working man and the average guy.
	Well, the average guy and the working man are the ones who are most being harmed by these things.
	And now it's leached out farther and it's metastasized.
	And it's beginning to make it very difficult for middle-class people to have the standard of living that so-called working class people had 50 years ago.
	I agree.
	Yeah.
	And it's like, what are they?
	What is their end game with all this stuff?
	Is it just to kill us all?
	Or what is it?
	Because it doesn't make any sense that they keep taking everything away from everybody.
	They want to take away our jobs and so forth and put us on universal basic income.
	What is the end game with that?
	It is so antithetical to what Henry Ford was about: as he said, we're going to make the cars cheap enough that the people who work on the assembly line, manufacture them, can afford to have one.
	And so, you know, what is the end game for the people?
	They really do hate us.
	It's this concentration.
	And that was the other aspect that these people noticed going back over 5,000 years.
	The frustration and the lack of sense of control over your own life, no opportunity, and all the rest of this stuff, which is precisely what the agenda is for the technocracy and the people who are around Trump that, you know, Peter Thiel and these Curtis Yarbin types, they want a society that's going to be libertarian for them and authoritarian for us.
	And that's what they're pushing to.
	And it's like, how do you think that that's going to be sustainable?
	People have never put up with that in history.
	So, you know, they may be able to put it in for a short period of time, but I don't think it was going to last.
	Psychologically, it's very interesting.
	I think part of it is kind of a pathological thing.
	And some people, it's not enough to have generational wealth, to have enough money not only for themselves to live without any care whatsoever about financial worries.
	Their kids and their kids' kids are going to be completely taken care of.
	It's never enough.
	How many billions do you need?
	Elon Musk's net worth is, what, 60 billion or something crazy like that?
	I think it's more than that.
	Yeah.
	And it's still not enough.
	They need more.
	You know, it's not enough to have a yacht.
	You have to have two yachts.
	Then you have to have a private jet.
	Then you have to have four.
	The biggest jach.
	You got to have the bigger than the billionaire next door.
	Yeah.
	And so that it's almost as if there's an element of sadism in it.
	It's not that, oh, I've got something really nice.
	I've got, you know, I've got a dime or a Maybach.
	But my neighbor, my God, that guy has a Chevy Suburban.
	The guy down, the guy who cuts my grass has a Chevy Suburban.
	I don't want him to have that.
	That's somehow a diminishment.
	I only feel good if I'm the only one who has something nice.
	I think that's part of psychologically what's motivating all of this.
	That's right.
	I think you're absolutely right.
	That's one of the reasons why they buy things like a Maybach because I'm the only one who's got a Maybach, right?
	Or they buy a dress or a purse that costs $4,000 or $8,000 or something.
	It's that exclusivity.
	And then there's only so far that you can go with that exclusivity until it's necessary for you to exclude stuff from other people.
	And that's really where this is all headed.
	I agree.
	It is really a kind of a sickness that's there.
	But we've always seen that.
	It's an addiction that these people have to money, right?
	The love of money, it becomes like a drug to them.
	It really does.
	Another interesting aspect of this, if I might elaborate just a touch, It's almost a cartoon indictment of capitalism, but it's not capitalism because almost all of these people, and in almost every case, they're acquiring their wealth through government.
	That's right.
	First thing we talked about when I had you on was your article about Elon Musk being the king of crony capitalism.
	That was more than a decade ago when we first talked about that.
	And that, as you pointed out, was how he got his wealth.
	I said that earlier in the program.
	I said, you know, you look at this, and so many times you see people who are libertarian or conservative, and they want to champion businesses and say business can do nothing wrong and government can do nothing right.
	And then the Democrats are the other way, right?
	Government can do nothing wrong.
	Businesses and private companies can do nothing right.
	The reality is that they've merged, and that's what makes it all so evil.
	And they don't see that.
	They imagine that we've got a free market or that we have capitalism, but it's not that at all.
	It's this kind of mixture that we see in China.
	And we recognize it in China, how they come in and say, well, you're going to have to give us a piece of that.
	But we're seeing that in spades now with Trump.
	He's using taking over, buying a share of Intel and using government money to start acquiring assets to own it.
	I mean, that is socialism, Marxism, central planning, all the things that Republicans used to oppose, they now applaud because Trump is doing it.
	Yep, they've so poisoned the well.
	And in addition to that, younger Americans in particular don't know their own history.
	That's right.
	Now, Henry Ford can be considered a capitalist.
	Henry Ford figured out a way to make a better mousetrap.
	And he didn't use the government at all to subsidize his business.
	What he did was to make a product that people could afford.
	And a very interesting thing about Ford was that the Model T got progressively less expensive with each model year because he would fine-tune it, figure out ways to make it cost less, and he was able to scale things up and he sold more of them so he could make more on volume than on individual unit sales.
	Yeah.
	You know, it was such a boon for average people because it liberated them from the yoke of having to be tied to an urban area, to a city.
	A farmer could buy a Ford Model T and he could use it as a tractor.
	They made it to be modular.
	So you could have it out on the farm and gasoline, of course, was portable.
	So even in the time before there were gas stations, you could bring gas to where there wasn't any gas.
	And we've taken this for granted as a civilization, this idea that we can just go where we want to go.
	That was not the case once.
	It was almost kind of a feudal order where you were stuck where you were by circumstances.
	And the dawn of that age changed that.
	And now we're reverting back to that age and we're being dragged back into it because most people just don't appreciate just how good we had it.
	And they might once it's all gone.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	Well, you know, a lot of this comes, and I've mentioned many times there was an op-ed piece that really dropped my jaw when I saw it by the CEO of Lyft.
	I can't remember his name.
	I don't know if he's still the CEO.
	But the guy had been an urban planner by education.
	And so he loved cities.
	And he said, cities are the best invention of mankind and cars are the worst invention.
	And I thought, this is just so upside down and backwards.
	Nobody agrees with that in reality because the reason that we have suburbs and the reason that we have what these urban planners derisively call urban sprawl is because people don't like living all pressed up against each other.
	And they're willing to spend time and money so they can get more space around them.
	But they hate that because these urban planners are all about control.
	And when you look at the Lyft and you look at Uber, you know, they were all about owning all of the transportation privately, right?
	They're making it kind of a fascist-run system, not directly owned by the government as if they would own all the buses and the rails and subway like that.
	But the fact that they would partner with government to make sure, you know, they do whatever government wants them to do.
	If the government tells them that David Knight can't ride anywhere, they would enforce that for them.
	And so they're all about that, and that kind of a partnership that we see there.
	And they're all about getting rid of, as Travis Kolalnik of Uber used to say, the reason our rides are expensive is because that other dude in the car.
	We're going to get rid of that other dude in the car.
	We're going to have self-driving cars.
	That's where we want to go.
	So who's going to be able to afford to drive in these things, right?
	Because it's not just one sector with artificial intelligence or robotics and everything.
	They're going for every sector all at once.
	They're trying to reduce this.
	There's an MIT report saying that they could get rid of, I forget how many tens of millions of jobs, but it was massive.
	It was like maybe 20 million jobs or something.
	We think we can replace 20 million jobs right now with AI if we get really serious about this.
	We build the data centers.
	Well, they'd love to do that because it'll increase their profit margin, will reduce their health care costs.
	Something else, though, you know, you mentioned how this guy, the Lyft guy, says that cities are bad.
	And it's unconscious.
	Cities are good.
	It's an unconscious confession.
	His subjective value.
	He personally thinks that cities are great.
	And he personally thinks that it's bad to not live in them and doesn't even appreciate that other people might have a different point of view.
	And if they have a different point of view, theirs should be stomped.
	They shouldn't be allowed to have their different point of view.
	That's the mentality of the people that we're dealing with.
	They can't live and let live.
	They can't say, okay, I've got a point of view.
	I like living in an urban hive.
	I like living in an apartment.
	You go ahead and live in the country if you want to.
	They can't do that.
	That whole American idea that we used to have of live and let live, different strokes for different folks.
	It's just being exterminated by this arrogant, one-size-fits-all.
	Everybody's going to do the same thing mentality.
	I agree.
	Yeah, I like EVs.
	So you're going to use an EV.
	I'm going to demand that you use it.
	There's not going to be any other exception.
	Yeah, I've got a couple of comments here.
	Bird House Blue says, I don't even recognize the cars today.
	They all look the same.
	That's absolutely right.
	And that's not by accident.
	The reason they all look the same is because they all have to comply with the same federal regulations.
	And that greatly limits the ability of designers to come up with anything different.
	It's kind of like the best way to understand it, if you follow COP racing, they literally have this template.
	It's this thing that they put over the body of the car.
	The car has to be within those parameters in order to be legal to use on the track.
	So that's why the NASCAR cars all look the same.
	No matter whether it says Toyota or Ford or whatever, they all look the same.
	And that's the reason why when you go to a car showroom, pretty much all the cars look like they got stamped out of the same factory and a different badge got put on the fender.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	He also has a comment.
	He says, cars used to have character.
	You know, you're talking about that.
	That reminds me of the Superbird.
	And I think it was Richard Petty that did that.
	Remember that?
	And they actually sold that for consumers.
	I had a friend of mine in high school.
	His dad bought him a Roadrunner Superbird.
	And it had that long extension on the front.
	And it had like the spoiler on the back that was like five feet above the trunk and everything.
	It was crazy that he was driving this around on the road, but he could do it.
	It was a 200-mile an hour car.
	And the really cool thing about stock car racing in those days is that they literally were stock cars in the sense that they took a production car, you know, and they turned it into a race car.
	Now, the cars that you see on a NASCAR circuit, they're all the same tube-frame chassis underneath with this skin on the top that's supposed to vaguely kind of remind you of a Ford or a, or it's not anything at all remotely like a car that you can buy at the dealership.
	Whereas back in the day, like your friend did, you could buy basically Richard Petty's car, a YouTube version of Richard Petty's car.
	And that's why I'm crazy.
	And they used to say, you know, went on Sunday, sell on Monday.
	And it was true because, you know, you went to the race.
	And if you were a Chevy guy and you watched the Chevy win the race or a Dodge guy, whatever, you were happy about that and you wanted to be associated with that.
	So you went and bought that car because you thought it was a winner because it won the race.
	And there was truth in that.
	Now, motorsports, at least as far as NASCAR goes, I know I'm going to get some hate for this, but I consider it to be the World Wrestling Federation of Motorsports.
	That's a good way to put it.
	That's funny.
	Well, I'll tell you, every time I see John in his car, he was really a nice guy.
	And the funny thing about it, he was not the kind of guy that would show off and he didn't do that with anything else.
	And he was actually, I always felt that he was embarrassed when people noticed his car.
	It's like, yeah, my dad bought it.
	Those cars were so out of character.
	It was amazing.
	Those cars, those Daytona Superbirds, those cars now are hundreds of thousands of dollars if you want to buy one now.
	Back in the day when they were available to the dealers, they couldn't sell them.
	A lot of times they would sit on the lot and they would eventually get fire sold to somebody for a budget price because, like your friend, people felt a little awkward driving around in this thing with this huge wing on the back, you know, and that bullet nose that it had on the front.
	Yeah, yeah, extended it.
	It's like, yeah, how are you going to park that anywhere?
	I assume that you didn't use that for your parallel parking driving test.
	It would never fit in the parking space.
	It was crazy.
	And it was always a lot of fun to see him.
	And I hope he didn't wreck it.
	Maybe if he kept it, he's got a lot of money now he could get for that.
	But yeah, as Bernhouse Blues also says, I used to buy mini-used cars for $500 or less back in the 80s even.
	That's true.
	Let's talk a little bit about, you got an article that just came out this week, a solution for a created problem.
	Tell us about that.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, we all have experienced the frustration of sitting at a traffic light and the light in front of us goes green.
	And as soon as you cross the intersection up ahead, there's another light and it just went red.
	Oh, yeah.
	And so, you know, signal timing, it's a problem, but it's a problem that's easily remedied by timing the signals.
	So that generally speaking on a given stretch of road, most of the lights will go green sequentially in order so that the traffic can flow.
	Well, instead of just doing it the simple way now, one of these tech bro companies associated with the University of Michigan has proposed the fine idea of collating and collecting data being transmitted from your car, your GPS data and other data, so that the system recognizes how many cars are on a given stretch of road at a given time, how fast they're moving, and they can use AI to coordinate the lights.
	Of course, really what this is about, again, is monitoring you, collecting data about you.
	They swear up and down on a stack of Brave New Worlds that it's anonymized data, but of course it's not.
	It's only anonymized because they choose it to be anonymized.
	All of this is tied particularly to your car.
	People don't realize, most people don't know that pretty much all cars now made within the last 10 or 15 years have what they call telematics, which means that they are constantly in communication with the hive.
	I call it the hive.
	They're receiving updates.
	They're transmitting this.
	And you have no consent and no ability to thwart that.
	And it's quite remarkable that there hasn't been more outrage as far, at least as far as I'm concerned.
	I don't like the idea of my car being like my cell phone in that it is controlled by some corporate entity somewhere that can decide that it wants to update it, i.e. change it, or that it can use this device to track my movements.
	Not because I'm a criminal, but because I don't want people knowing where I'm going.
	It's reasonable.
	I don't feel like I ought to have an ankle bracelet on unless I've actually been convicted of a crime.
	That's right.
	You know, there was an interesting thing reported on the last couple of weeks.
	And there was a guy who was pushing back against a bunch of statists who were pushing for some new safety devices or something to be made mandatory on cars.
	And this is a guy who, before he became a politician, he used to sell cars.
	And so he decided he would go around and see if these people actually had bought these safety devices that were optional on their car.
	So he went around and got their VIN numbers for their cars, looked it up and found out that these people who were saying you absolutely have to have this stuff had declined paying for it when they had the option to and were going to use their money.
	So he says, so now you're going to force everybody to buy what you chose not to buy when you had the opportunity to do it.
	And their reaction to it was like, how dare you get my VIN number and look this stuff up?
	You violated my privacy.
	And I thought, this is the most hypocritical thing you can imagine.
	These are the people who are spying on us with everything, as you point out, in our car and all the rest of it.
	But of course, there's also the massive flock network of cameras that are out there doing automated license plate readings and not just the license plate, but they are creating an ID profile of your car, looking at the idiosyncrasies of it.
	Does it have a dent on the side or a scratch or this or that?
	And tracking that, literally tracking it for law enforcement all the time and doing that as a contract.
	And that is exploding.
	That's a kind of public-private tyranny that we see over and over again.
	And I thought it was just the most amazing.
	I played that clip a couple of weeks within the last couple of weeks and the attitude of these people.
	How dare you do this when they are mandating stuff for people and they are spying on people all the time.
	Yeah, it's really interesting to me that, you know, this gets us into the subject of the driver assistance technology, which is related to it.
	Why is it that it is made standard equipment now in every vehicle, even though the overwhelming majority of people do not want this?
	I can't tell you how many times I get emails and comments whenever I do shows like yours.
	People say, you know, I despise being parented by my car.
	I don't like lane keep assistance.
	I don't like any of that.
	I want to turn it off.
	You can't turn it off anymore.
	All you can do is turn it down.
	And it's interesting that these manufacturers who you'd think would not want to alienate their customers, why would you put something in a vehicle that most people don't want?
	Yeah.
	Well, it's because they want it.
	And then the question is begged, well, why do they want it?
	And I think the reason is because they're just gradually, piece by piece, putting together this system in which you will have no control over your car beyond what they want you to have.
	So the minute that you go outside the parameters of that, the car will correct you.
	And it may get to the point where it just shuts off or it doesn't operate at all if you don't operate it within the allowable parameters.
	And at that point, we might as well just all sign up for a Johnny Cab, which is ultimately, I think, what they really do want.
	It is, it is.
	And that's why these car companies have been partnerships in a partnership with government to add all these expensive add-ons and all these things that people don't want because it drives the price of the car up and they can charge people for that.
	But the problem is, is that they've kind of, you know, one thing that Vladimir Lenin got right was he said the capitalists will sell the rope that's used to hang them.
	And that's what's being used to hang these guys now is, you know, they've sold all these safety device ropes to rope you in.
	And now their cars are so expensive people can't afford it.
	But then, of course, the solution to that is to get even more into a relationship and a partnership with the government so that they are the providers with this mobility stuff that's going to be privately owned, but will be heavily controlled.
	And the government will tell them what to do.
	And of course, you'll have the politicians who will get to wet their beak, as the mafia people say.
	That's basically how this is going to operate.
	It's going to be the Chinese model.
	That's why they opened up China for this type of thing.
	Inevitably, too, to speak to your point about not seeing their own self-interest, there will have to be a winnowing of the number of manufacturers because it just doesn't make sense to have as many manufacturers as there still are producing essentially the same thing.
	Why not consolidate everything, kind of like they did in the Soviet Union, where you could get a lot of maybe after 15 or 20 years on a waiting list?
	It's going to be or a Trabant.
	Those were your choices back in the old Soviet days.
	And ultimately, I see something like that happening.
	Philip Dick, the great sci-fi writer, foresaw this.
	If you read his novel, Blade Runner, they don't get into it.
	The novel is, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
	The movie Blade Runner is the one that people are more familiar with.
	But in the novel, everything is controlled by what's called the Turrell Corporation.
	Everything.
	It's sort of like the Amazon of our time.
	It's just this, every single consumer good is made and manufactured by this one pyramidal structured, massive corporation that controls everything.
	And he wrote that book decades and decades and decades ago.
	And here we are.
	It was very prescient in the way it foresaw what corporatism would turn capitalism into.
	All these dystopia novels have become a manual for these people, I think.
	Yeah, you talk about you'd wait for decades for that.
	That was one of the best Ronald Reagan jokes basically in Russia, right?
	The guy orders, I don't know if it's a car, let's just say as a washing machine.
	And he goes, we'll have that for you in 10 years.
	And the guy says, afternoon or morning?
	And he says, why do you ask?
	It's 10 years from now.
	He goes, well, because I've got the dishwasher coming in the morning 10 years from now.
	That's funny, but it's sad.
	Because those of us who can remember the way America used to be, you know, never thought America would become like the Soviet Union.
	That's right.
	And yet we're rapidly on our way to becoming exactly that.
	Well, you know, it's even to the extent that you've got a lot of these conservative influencers.
	And again, these are not people who are researchers and not reporters.
	They're not journalists.
	They are influencers.
	That ought to tell you something.
	But they're out there trying to rehabilitate Richard Nixon, of all people, our 55-mile-an-hour guy who created the EPA and so many other issues out there.
	And he opened us up to China and he set us down on this path.
	And I said, you know, think about it, conservatives.
	If you like Richard Nixon, you got to like Henry Kissinger, Mr. Globalism himself, you know.
	But it's amazing how this has all, you know, it's a long-term plan that they've been operating on.
	You know, with regard to what we talked about at the beginning of the interview, the federal fuel economy standards, you know, I think the best way to challenge that is to say, why is the government involved in that at all?
	Yeah, that's right.
	I mean, what business is it of the government to decree to you or I how many miles per gallon a vehicle that we choose to buy with our own money must get?
	Where is that in the Constitution?
	And where is the authority for the EPA and the Constitution, right?
	And it's based on a fatuity.
	You know, the argument is that if the government weren't doing this, then the mean old automakers would make nothing but gas-guzzling cars.
	And we'd all be at the mercy of big oil.
	It's nonsense.
	Before CAFE came along in the early 70s, there were plenty of fuel-efficient cars available.
	So it's a lie.
	And these mandates that are coming out, the CAFE thing costs you money.
	Yeah, your car gets 35 miles per gallon, but it also costs $40,000 now.
	So you're really not saving any money because you've got this micro-engine turbocharged hybrid augmented thing with a CBT transmission.
	And yay, I'm getting five miles more per gallon than the vehicle that costs thousands and thousands of dollars less.
	But I guess people just can't do basic math anymore.
	So they buy into this nonsense.
	That's right.
	Yeah.
	I like this Sop-ed piece that you put out, The Last Generation.
	Put this out yesterday.
	You started by saying, before the 90s, men drove cars and kids rode bicycles without helmets.
	Now men wear helmets to ride a bicycle.
	And kids aren't allowed to ride in a car unless they're strapped in a safety seat.
	You know, that is the amazing thing.
	You know, Travis just had to get a car seat for their son.
	And of course, they're talking about, well, this is going to last up until whatever the age is.
	And they make the cars so that they have different inserts that you can put in when they're small when they can keep staying in that car seat forever, you know, as they get older and older.
	It's amazing.
	It's terrible.
	And, you know, one of the hidden costs of that, by the way, with regard to the safety seat mandate, it effectively pushes people to buy a three-row SUV at some point or a crossover.
	Because if you've got more than two kids, you know, it becomes just too difficult to fit the seats in the back of the thing.
	So then you have to move up and buy this much more expensive vehicle.
	You know, I just, I miss the days, you know, when we were kids, you went for a drive, mom and dad, you open the door, just jump in the car and go.
	Yeah, now you got to go.
	You got to be able to get in the car and get them into the car seat and all the rest of this stuff.
	I mean, we just used to climb these cars.
	They didn't have seat belts.
	They didn't have padded dashboards or anything.
	We used to joke about it even when you were in high school.
	They started putting in the seatbelts.
	They weren't mandatory yet.
	And we used to laugh about it and say, yeah, we used to just, somebody have an accident.
	We just hose the blood off the dashboard and sell the car again.
	Sure.
	You know, I understand that there is an increased risk.
	I know some people listening to us might be appalled at what I'm suggesting here, but I think it's gotten to be almost neurotic.
	No, I think it is neurotic.
	It's an over-the-top fear that pervades our society about what might happen.
	You know, heaven forfend, you know, you get in a car and drive down to the mailbox without your seatbelt on.
	You know, you might die.
	This is the attitude that people have now.
	And it's just, it's over the top and it's silly.
	And just on a moral level, if you're an adult, you don't need to be parented, presumably.
	You're grown up.
	So ease off, leave me alone.
	I'll make decisions.
	I'll weigh costs, benefits, risks, and reward for myself.
	You have no right to parent another adult.
	That's right.
	Yeah, they would be absolutely appalled to see what happens in China when we were there like 20 years ago.
	You know, you got somebody's, the family, they don't have an SUV.
	They don't have a car.
	They got a motorcycle.
	And they just tell the little kids that are maybe, you know, four years old, just hang on.
	You know, there's no seatbelt.
	There's nothing there.
	Somehow they managed to survive.
	I used to always laugh about the magic school bus when the thing would come on.
	And they would start by saying, seatbelts, everybody said, there's no seatbelts on a school bus.
	They cover them with laws and yellow paint to make sure that nobody gets hurt.
	It's always great talking to you, Eric.
	We're out of time.
	That went by really, really fast, as it always does.
	Thank you so much.
	EricPeters.com.
	Check it out, folks.
	Great site for news.
	Thank you, David.
	Appreciate it.
	Thank you. The Common Man.
	They created Common Core to dumb down our children.
	They created Common Paths to track and control us.
	Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing in the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidknightshow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.

▲